The Patent Pledge • Hacker News Board

Re: The Patent Pledge

#191

Post by huhtenberg » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 5:03 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #152

huhtenberg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also refuse to participate if asked by my company to help create a patent What if it covers an actual invention? What if it is meant to be used defensively, i.e. not for the litigation, but rather to discourage other companies from suing based on their patents?

Software inventions, no matter how original, should never be patented. Where would we be if someone had patented web-crawling or unit testing or hyperlinks or MVC? Plenty of people are getting rich, tons of innovation is going on. What are software patents supposed to be good for?

> Software inventions, no matter how original, should never be patented

Why not?

The whole idea of patents is to prevent trivial duplication of results that were achieved through considerable research expense. I don't really see much difference between spending a lot of time on getting a mechanical design right or developing and testing a drug or researching a sophisticated algorithm.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#192

Post by mas644 » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 5:09 PM UTC

Not a bad idea...like Paul said, it's a start. Here's a comment that I read from some user on Slashdot regarding the Apple vs Samsung/Motorola patent dispute that summarizes my feelings:

"Look, you pack of fucking navel-gazing fucktards. Put down the fucking guns, agree to pool your resources to buy sufficient hookers and Caribbean vacations for Congresscritters to have the existing patent system tossed out the door. We get it that you all sort of started out accruing vast numbers of patents, some good, some bad, some absolutely fucking moronic, in no small part to fend off attacks from each other and from evil little patent trolls, but look at how it's complicating your lives. You couldn't roll out a steaming turd without someone somewhere trying to claim you infringed on a patent they own.

Apple, you're now one of the biggest companies around. If anyone can afford the required number of prostitutes, golf club memberships, or whatever it is those corrupted evil bastards in Congress have an appetite for. Google, come on, you could help out here, same with Samsung. Then you can, you know, compete on the quality of your products, rather than trying to stuff newspaper down each others throats in what can only be described as the bonfire of the idiots."

Re: The Patent Pledge

#193

Post by cgopalan » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 5:44 PM UTC

I also hope the patent pledge site will progress towards discouraging companies like that of Like.com by including instances of how they shamelessly killed Modista. Like PG, I am still ambivalent about patents (though mostly believing they are bad), but clear cases of misuse like these need to be emphasized and publicized.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#194

Post by SoftwarePatent » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 6:18 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #186

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…

How exactly did the Supreme Court blow it? They affirmed the Fed Circuit opinion that said to stop using State Street and Alappat as precedent. Those two rogue court decisions were the only reason we have software patents. Aren't we now back to Benson, Flook and Diehr?

Bilski is ambiguous. At first the patent bar thought the Fed Cir would interpret it as "business as usual" but the Fed Cir has recently been using it to push back slightly against software patents. It's a terrible outcome because everyone wants a clear line on patentability and the S Ct didn't deliver.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#195

Post by brlewis » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 7:02 PM UTC

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #194

brlewis wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly did the Supreme Court blow it? They affirmed the Fed Circuit opinion that said to stop using State Street and Alappat as precedent. Those two rogue court decisions were the only reason we have software patents. Aren't we now back to Benson, Flook and Diehr?

Bilski is ambiguous. At first the patent bar thought the Fed Cir would interpret it as "business as usual" but the Fed Cir has recently been using it to push back slightly against software patents. It's a terrible outcome because everyone wants a clear line on patentability and the S Ct didn't deliver.

The line drawn in Benson, Flook and Diehr would be adequate to solve virtually all of today's software patent problems. Shouldn't that be where the line is drawn now? Here's what the Fed Circuit said, and the Supreme Court affirmed it:

Therefore, we also conclude that the "useful, concrete and tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply. As a result, those portions of our opinions in State Street and AT&T relying solely on a "useful, concrete and tangible result" analysis should no longer be relied on.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#196

Post by SoftwarePatent » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #195

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bilski is ambiguous. At first the patent bar thought the Fed Cir would interpret it as "business as usual" but the Fed Cir has recently been using it to push back slightly against software patents. It's a terrible outcome because everyone wants a clear line on patentability and the S Ct didn't deliver.

The line drawn in Benson, Flook and Diehr would be adequate to solve virtually all of today's software patent problems. Shouldn't that be where the line is drawn now? Here's what the Fed Circuit said, and the Supreme Court affirmed it: Therefore, we also conclude that the "useful, concrete and tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is…

I wish you were on the Federal Circuit. A majority of judges on that court don't agree with your reading of the cases.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#197

Post by artursapek » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 11:00 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #184

doron wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that this is not how guns usually get used?

I'll suggest that. Over 50 million households in the US own 200 million or more guns, collectively. If these guns were usually used this way, the US would be depopulated by gun violence in a decade or two.

Thank you, I wasn't gonna bother

Re: The Patent Pledge

#198

Post by teach » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 2:16 AM UTC

DanBealeC wrote: post #172

teach wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're mistaken about superpowers flinging nukes at each other. Only two nuclear weapons have ever been used in war, and that was 65 years ago.

It was analogy / metaphor. All the superpowers == all the big companies (Google, Apple, Samsung, etc) routinely fling nukes == lots of patent litigation.

Good call. That interpretation seems obvious in retrospect.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#199

Post by Benjo » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 3:45 AM UTC

I'd love to see an rss feed on the pledge site.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#200

Post by dotBen » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 7:38 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #174

dotBen wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. Which is why you would redact that line and tell them you can only sign the contract without that clause. In the current climate NO software engineer should be signing any employment contract handed to them without making some change - there is tons of opportunity to leverage better terms in the current market.

dotBen - do you work in Silicon Valley? Unless you are a CxO, there is almost never any modification of the employment contract, and certainly never any surrounding the IP elements at a VC funded company of any stature. In 95% of the cases, if you won't sign the contract as provided, it's a deal breaker and you aren't hired. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions for special cases. And, clearly for non VC funded comp…

ghshephard - yes I live and work in SF and Silicon Valley and have done so for 6+ years.

I always dictate my own terms on contracts. I advise others to do so too.

Have you tried to hire engineers in Silicon Valley? I've heard of employees who've negotiated $50k cash signing bonus, 8 weeks holiday a year, a personal assistant to do their grocery shopping, agreement that the founder will personally invest $300k in the employee's future startup (these are separately, not the same contract).

Good engineers can get whatever they want.