Patent Troll Myths • Hacker News Board

Re: Patent Troll Myths

#11

Post by bobthebee » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 4:21 AM UTC

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #9

joe_the_user wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patent trolls personally are a significant part of the problem in the sense that for every dollar won in a troll lawsuit, some high fraction will go lobbying the state for more patent laws allowing them to sue for more dollars. The "don't blame the player, blame the game" argument appears here regularly. I think it's valid in those places where the players don't make the rules. But in a variety of concentrated indust…

I must not have been clear. I DO blame the player, and think that the lawyers at (e.g.) LodSys don't have the slightest clue about ethics or morality among them (I also think things about them that are not printable in an HN comment). I just think the proper strategy is to defeat ALL of the players at once by changing the rules, both from a cost AND a risk perspective. If you want to fight trolls mano-a-mano in lawsu…

I don't think it is productive to blame "the players". In fact, it obscures the issue.

Look at it from the perspective of the patents (in a Dawkins sense). Patents want to make money. Patents grant exclusivity to something valuable. In a capitalist society they will naturally be acquired by whoever can make the most money. Maybe not initially but over time they will find the right (value maximizing) host. There is an inevitability to this. The value maximizing host seem to be so called patent trolls.

The role of government is to set the rules/bounds for capitalism. With patents you could argue that there is a problem with the rules. But I don't think you can blame the players once the rules are set. Capitalism is not about morality, but profit maximizing and resource allocation. The solution is simple. Change the rules of the game.

As a side note Paul Graham's patent pledge attacks the wrong side of the problem and will therefore not be effective. Instead create a pledge for companies that want to change the game and let them be vocal about it.

Re: Patent Troll Myths

#12

Post by ZeroGravitas » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 8:52 AM UTC

The term patent troll was invented by someone working for IBM to describe firms they couldn't dominate purely by flexing their own absurd patents.

These trolls are waging asymmetric war. If they met IBM or Apple on their preferred battlefield (i.e. formed a company and made products, which is considered "the right thing to do") then they'd be wiped out instantly by superior firepower. So instead they fight the only way they can, forming terrorist cells or shell corporations that consist of two layers and a handful of patents (often with shadowy funding coming from larger players).

Note a further parallel. The term "asymmetric warfare" means to fight like a terrorist. What's the term for having a force so overwhelming that you get to order smaller companies/nations about? That situation seems just as asymmetric, and just as troublesome for the weaker companies/nations, yet it doesn't have a catchy term for us in the stronger countries to worry about.

Just to be clear, I don't think terrorism or patent trolling are noble pursuits or good for the planet, but I am saying that the conditions that lead to them can in basically all cases be laid at the feet of the big players and if you want to solve these problems, it's the big players you'd need to change.

Re: Patent Troll Myths

#13

Post by dctoedt » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:59 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #12

The term patent troll was invented by someone working for IBM to describe firms they couldn't dominate purely by flexing their own absurd patents. These trolls are waging asymmetric war. If they met IBM or Apple on their preferred battlefield (i.e. formed a company and made products, which is considered "the right thing to do") then they'd be wiped out instantly by superior firepower. So instead they fight the only w…

> The term patent troll was invented by someone working for IBM ...

The term is widely regarded as having been coined by Peter Detkin, then a senior in-house attorney for Intel [1] and now a managing partner for Intellectual Ventures [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Detkin; see also http://www.intellectualventures.com/WhoWeAre/OurTeam/Bio/Pet...

Re: Patent Troll Myths

#14

Post by EGreg » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:15 PM UTC

I think this patent law professor is an important voice, but once again my point is simple. Patents are NOT needed in the software industry to promote what is already a very fast moving environment. I prove this by showing something that is plain to everyone who is familiar with how tech companies work: they base their technology on incremental innovations, internal research, or open source. They do NOT read patent disclosures. We do not need to give out 20 year monopolies to incentivize patent disclosures by "inventors" to the public, because no one cares about these disclosures!!

The relevant numbers would be the proportion of companies that public patent disclosures have helped. For example, how many people were helped by Google publishing their PageRank algorithm (in its "best form")? Probably some were helped, but not a lot. And this is one of the BIGGEST and most HELPFUL examples of patents. How many were helped by amazon's 1-click patent disclosure? I am willing to bet maybe ZERO people were actually helped because by the time it was asserted, it was OBVIOUS to everyone who made the technology.

Re: Patent Troll Myths

#15

Post by SomeCallMeTim » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 4:49 PM UTC

bobthebee wrote: post #11

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must not have been clear. I DO blame the player, and think that the lawyers at (e.g.) LodSys don't have the slightest clue about ethics or morality among them (I also think things about them that are not printable in an HN comment). I just think the proper strategy is to defeat ALL of the players at once by changing the rules, both from a cost AND a risk perspective. If you want to fight trolls mano-a-mano in lawsu…

I don't think it is productive to blame "the players". In fact, it obscures the issue. Look at it from the perspective of the patents (in a Dawkins sense). Patents want to make money. Patents grant exclusivity to something valuable. In a capitalist society they will naturally be acquired by whoever can make the most money. Maybe not initially but over time they will find the right (value maximizing) host. There is an…

Seeing capitalism as amoral discounts the fact that capitalism a system used by humans. It's humans who are being amoral to attempt to enforce obviously bad patents. A rational and moral human shouldn't enforce (or consider there to be any value in) a patent that is obviously overly broad -- any more than a rational and moral human shouldn't attempt to steal someone's house because of an error made by the government in recording the deed.

I vehemently disagree that you can "blame" the patents. It's humans all the way down.

I agree with you on the STRATEGY -- the best way to fix the problems is to change the rules. But I will continue to call people amoral/unethical and lob lots of hate in their direction when their behavior justifies it, regardless of whether they are technically breaking the law. A parasite is a parasite.