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

Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

blog.opensource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 197 posts

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#81

Post by codedokode »

This seems like a loss. Gnome and other companies had to pay money (as I understand) for an invalid patent, a patent lawyer had to pay for re-examination and a patent troll lost nothing except for a patent that was invalid anyway.

Are vaguely worded patents legal? For example, if someone in the age of black-and-white TV would patent an idea that "colors can be transmitted wirelessly or by wire, decoded or not decoded by a TV or other electronic or non-electronic device and displayed or not displayed on a screen or other medium". Would this idea without any research count as a valid patent application? Please explain, knowledgable people.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#82

Post by akira2501 »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #30

> Perhaps it's time for the law to adjust to the point where the stakes for the troll are high Take that further. The stakes should be high against all adjacent patent holders. Ultimately if we want to keep a working patent system it's too much work to rely on piecemeal independent cases like this, albeit a great success. The system has to self-police to be fair, and perhaps the best people to keep trolls and mischie…

> If you sell a gun to an unstable crazy who shoots up the neighbourhood then some blame lies with you.

I'm not required, thankfully, when selling something to do deep background on the person purchasing it. Further, you'd have to prove that my knowledge of this person included the fact that they intended to do something bad with the gun I sold them before I sold it to them.

Finally.. I may have just sold them the gun. Perhaps it's more important to ask this question of the person who sold him the bullets. In this analogy, I suppose that would be the patent law firm.

> Ultimately its probably better if we move to a world where a lot of "intellectual property" expires with it's holder and passes into the public domain.

You move from a high premium on participating in a market, which by some arguments, is my right to participate in to having no participation in it at all. I think more harm than good comes from this.

> To apply a leverage point analysis, it's probably time to reexamine and change the rules about the transferability of patents. Does the purchaser have a legitimate justification to hold the patent? If no, it forfeits.

You'll trade outright patent transfers for shell company transfers, and the small inventor takes a back seat in all of this.

This situation is unfortunate, but I don't think improvements come from hamstringing everyone.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#83

Post by riazrizvi »

jmyeet wrote: post #57

> Perhaps it's time for the law to adjust to the point where the stakes for the troll are high enough to make it less appealing as a business? No, that's just polishing the brass on the Titanic. Patents on software just shouldn't exist. At all. We already have established laws where you can't patent maths. An algorithm is just a function. It should be covered by the maths disqualifier. The fact that a smartphone coul…

Algorithms are not patentable. Alice v. CLS Bank Int’l, Supreme Court 2014, holds that abstract ideas "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”

But at the same time, just because a patent includes an algorithm, it is not necessarily invalidated.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#84

Post by dismalpedigree »

jmyeet wrote: post #77
kajaktum wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What isn't math tho? A lawnmower is just an assemblage of laws of physics. In this case, software is just an assemblage of laws of boolean algebra or something.

Why should the idea of a lawnmower be patented? There are already enough protections for IP. Design patents, trademarks and copyright (to some degree). Giving an inventor of something a monopoly on its creation should be extremely limited. Quite famously, the Wright Brothers original patent on the flight control mechanism successfully stifled any American company from making a plane, which became a real issue when th…

This is interesting. Can you recommend a link to read more about this?

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#85

Post by dpacmittal »

thechao wrote: post #64
jmyeet wrote: post #57

> Perhaps it's time for the law to adjust to the point where the stakes for the troll are high enough to make it less appealing as a business? No, that's just polishing the brass on the Titanic. Patents on software just shouldn't exist. At all. We already have established laws where you can't patent maths. An algorithm is just a function. It should be covered by the maths disqualifier. The fact that a smartphone coul…

If IP is real property, it should be taxed. The tax system I like for IP works for hire is this: each year you owe 1/4% * N (where N is the age of the IP) in taxes on the IP. Whatever you pay, the "public" (anyone/everyone else) can pay the balance to the USPTO (or LoC) to move that IP in to the public domain. Non-works-for-hire last for some fixed time, or until all the authors/inventors are dead, whichever comes fi…

That's how you get lead inventors dying mysteriously

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#86

Post by wvenable »

TimPC wrote: post #56
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #11

How about we make "non-practicing entity" a defense in a patent lawsuit? That, if you can prove that the owner of the patent is an NPE (and doesn't reasonably license or innovate or even try to innovate, only sue or unreasonably license), case tossed...

Many for example Universities invent something patentable that's broadly useful but don't want to start a company to make the thing. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this proposal. It also doesn't solve the entire problem as many companies are practicing entities that also use bullshit patents against other practicing entities.

The university should just sell the patent the company and then they would be the practicing entity that can sue.

This is even better because things can't just be patented and that knowledge locked away without anybody able to use it.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#87

Post by puffoflogic »

riazrizvi wrote: post #83
jmyeet wrote: post #57

> Perhaps it's time for the law to adjust to the point where the stakes for the troll are high enough to make it less appealing as a business? No, that's just polishing the brass on the Titanic. Patents on software just shouldn't exist. At all. We already have established laws where you can't patent maths. An algorithm is just a function. It should be covered by the maths disqualifier. The fact that a smartphone coul…

Algorithms are not patentable. Alice v. CLS Bank Int’l, Supreme Court 2014, holds that abstract ideas "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” But at the same time, just because a patent includes an algorithm, it is not necessarily invalidated.

Alice only matters if you can afford to get your case before SCOTUS (i.e., both money and political influence). The federal circuit has demonstrated they have no problem whatsoever with ignoring Alice and thumbing their nose at SCOTUS.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#88

Post by activitypea »

riazrizvi wrote: post #83
jmyeet wrote: post #57

> Perhaps it's time for the law to adjust to the point where the stakes for the troll are high enough to make it less appealing as a business? No, that's just polishing the brass on the Titanic. Patents on software just shouldn't exist. At all. We already have established laws where you can't patent maths. An algorithm is just a function. It should be covered by the maths disqualifier. The fact that a smartphone coul…

Algorithms are not patentable. Alice v. CLS Bank Int’l, Supreme Court 2014, holds that abstract ideas "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” But at the same time, just because a patent includes an algorithm, it is not necessarily invalidated.

tell that to John Carmack

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#89

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

The patent in question that was invalidated [0]:

    Wireless image distribution system and method

    Abstract
    A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving device.
[0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9936086B2/en

TL;DR some kind of device sends an image to some kind of "paired" companion device wirelessly.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#90

Post by rhizome »

robbedpeter wrote: post #69
thechao wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If IP is real property, it should be taxed. The tax system I like for IP works for hire is this: each year you owe 1/4% * N (where N is the age of the IP) in taxes on the IP. Whatever you pay, the "public" (anyone/everyone else) can pay the balance to the USPTO (or LoC) to move that IP in to the public domain. Non-works-for-hire last for some fixed time, or until all the authors/inventors are dead, whichever comes fi…

This leads to the notion of being taxed for having a brain. Software patents shouldn't exist. The concept is patently absurd.

>This leads to the notion of being taxed for having a brain

Isn't this the same logic as used in the US against capital gains taxes, that a person is being punished for being successful?

Post reply on HN