Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#81

Post by 0x12 »

radu_floricica wrote: post #72
waterhouse wrote: post #38

The book "Against Intellectual Monopoly" is highly recommended reading for the question of patents (and other intellectual property). The authors make a mostly empirical survey of the effects of intellectual property laws and of their absence in a wide range of industries, and conclude that their effect is a stifling rather than an encouragement of innovation. I think it's especially appropriate because, while my own…

I've read that the possibility to patent genes led to the explosion of the field some years back. Are there such positive examples discussed in the book?

They led to an explosion of patents on genes, not to an explosion of applicable research. The research would have happened anyway, maybe a bit later or maybe not as patent directed.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#82

Post by burgerbrain »

PakG1 wrote: post #68
burgerbrain wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently finding myself question my own disapproval of capital punishment. Every single one of the board members of this company could be put to an incredibly painful death by lethal injection and I just might bake a cake.

You know that death by lethal injection is actually not painful? Not that I support your hyperbole (if it is hyperbole), just clarifying the facts.

Of course it is, that's why they like to use it. It's the perfect crime really, paralyze the guy so he can't protest then dump salt into his heart.

If they wanted it to be painless, they'd just throw in more of the barbiturate, which they're using already anyway. There is a reason we kill animals like that. Or, as another of your respondents pointed out, nitrogen asphyxiation. That one is so impossible to mess up it's absurd.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#83

Post by tjr »

caf wrote: post #79
danssig wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't consumers have some protection here? I mean, they probably bought the wifi at a common store. You don't normally walk out of Walmart with a box containing a product you expect to not legally be able to use.

Legally I believe that's an issue between the consumer and the merchant and/or manufacturer.

Legally, it depends. A bit of web searching did turn up (so far) one LinkSys router that explicitly disclaims implied warranty of non-infrigement. If that is disclaimed, then yes, it falls to the consumer to deal with it.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#84

Post by skrebbel »

redthrowaway wrote: post #69
noonespecial wrote: post #29

Hams have been doing packet radio since the 70's in earnest and it's been around far longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio There is clearly prior art. When you make this big a nuisance of yourself, clearly exploiting the system at society's expense, you should be permanently disbarred. You are a clear and present danger to the continued operation of the justice system. Edit: Might a flood of complaints to…

Say what you will about the trolls; these guys have it figured out. They're targeting people with enough cash to make it go away, but not enough to mount a proper defence. Prior art doesn't enter the picture, as the trolls' targets are unlikely to retain counsel. When it costs as much to retain a lawyer as it does to make the issue go away, it's perfectly rational for the small business owner to pay up and move on. T…

An acquaintance of mine goes by bars, small stores and coffee shops in his town. He tells them that he knows the neighbourhood pretty well, and that for the low, low fee of $400 a month, he can make sure that their store doesn't burn down or get trashed. It's cynical, reprehensible, and evil, but it's a pretty solid business model.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#85

Post by eru »

skrebbel wrote: post #84
redthrowaway wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you will about the trolls; these guys have it figured out. They're targeting people with enough cash to make it go away, but not enough to mount a proper defence. Prior art doesn't enter the picture, as the trolls' targets are unlikely to retain counsel. When it costs as much to retain a lawyer as it does to make the issue go away, it's perfectly rational for the small business owner to pay up and move on. T…

An acquaintance of mine goes by bars, small stores and coffee shops in his town. He tells them that he knows the neighbourhood pretty well, and that for the low, low fee of $400 a month, he can make sure that their store doesn't burn down or get trashed. It's cynical, reprehensible, and evil, but it's a pretty solid business model.

Is it just bluffing?

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#86

Post by adestefan »

wnight wrote: post #67
kprobst wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intellectual property and patents are not the problem, the problem is the broken system around them that allows these types of abuses.

Nope. The problem is granting monopolies and expecting to encourage growth. It's nonsensical. Even if our courts were up to it, and we see time and hand again that they are not, you simply cannot consistently enforce incoherent laws. All IP laws other than trademark are harmful to society and the economy and need to be abolished.

You think that if I were to write a song and post a recording of it on YouTube, then it would be perfectly acceptable for anyone, from the grandmother down the street to the ultra-mega business in the big city, to take my lyrics and melody and make mounds of money from it without compensating me in the least?

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#87

Post by adestefan »

Astrohacker wrote: post #15
diego_moita wrote: post #9

This is very nice! Politicians will only solve a problem after it becomes a calamity. If the problem gets bad enough, they might start paying attention.

Politicians created the problem by creating IP laws. If they "solve" it, they will undoubtedly just introduce some new problem.

Warning US-centric Content. If you're not from the US, then you might not know this.

Patents are the only thing that are specifically addressed in the US Constitution besides the form and function of the Federal government. It was and is a pretty big deal.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#88

Post by MartinCron »

Astrohacker wrote: post #65
MartinCron wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't normally press people for alternatives, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we were to get rid of "institutionalized use of force", what would we replace it with? Can you give me a single example of a large-scale society without effective government that hasn't devolved into a nightmare scenario?

You wouldn't replace it with anything. You'd need a cultural change where people recognized that stealing is always wrong, even if they call it taxes and declare it legal. Police and courts would be businesses like any other and not funded by force. As for examples, America was founded in liberty. Unfortunately the nightmare scenario is playing out in real time as the US evolves from the tiny government of two centur…

Are you really making the claim that we have less liberty today than we did two hundred years ago? Maybe if you're a white male landowner. For everyone else, things have been getting progressively better over the last few hundred years.

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#89

Post by eru »

Astrohacker wrote: post #65
MartinCron wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't normally press people for alternatives, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we were to get rid of "institutionalized use of force", what would we replace it with? Can you give me a single example of a large-scale society without effective government that hasn't devolved into a nightmare scenario?

You wouldn't replace it with anything. You'd need a cultural change where people recognized that stealing is always wrong, even if they call it taxes and declare it legal. Police and courts would be businesses like any other and not funded by force. As for examples, America was founded in liberty. Unfortunately the nightmare scenario is playing out in real time as the US evolves from the tiny government of two centur…

> America was founded in liberty.

Does this mean anything?

Re: Patent Troll: Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won't Sue Individuals 'At This Stage'

#90

Post by burgerbrain »

eru wrote: post #89
Astrohacker wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't replace it with anything. You'd need a cultural change where people recognized that stealing is always wrong, even if they call it taxes and declare it legal. Police and courts would be businesses like any other and not funded by force. As for examples, America was founded in liberty. Unfortunately the nightmare scenario is playing out in real time as the US evolves from the tiny government of two centur…

> America was founded in liberty. Does this mean anything?

The way I see it, when I read the constitution, it is fairly clear that the government was engineered to be a sort of anti-government. Something put into place to fill the power vacuum to prevent other "real" (defined as pretty much every other government they were familiar with at the time) from moving in and taking control.

Of course, I'm an anarchist, so I might be projecting... I think they also failed miserably though, because they forgot about human nature. Noble attempt, worthy of some praise, but ultimately it failed. Neat parallel to those who say communism failed because it forgot to consider human nature I think ;)

So founded in liberty? Basically just describes the mindset of the designers. What they were going for.

Post reply on HN