Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights • Hacker News Board

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#101

Post by extropy » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

tepitoperrito wrote: post #98

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…

I need to investigate this "maths disqualifier" because it completely blows my mind that companies are actively patenting the application of statistical machine learning models to their domain. For example Xometry has successfully patented "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MACHINE LEARNING PREDICTIONS OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES"[0]. To me there is literally nothing novel here, they are just describing the results of using a…

Currently there exists a widely used "being used with hardware" hoophole that allows taking pure maths and adding a bit of hardware in there "a memory unit" "a processing unit" "I/O unit" and have a valid patent.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#102

Post by thechao » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:50 PM UTC

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.

I fucking hate software patents. The best part about taxing them, like this, is that SW patents become a major financial liability.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#103

Post by tepitoperrito » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

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.

I agree that software patents shouldn't exist. I think the taxation is on leveraging your brain to prevent others from using concepts you've learned to be useful.

With some clever legalese it should even be possible to minimally harm individuals with brains while adding a non negligible cost to those who would (and are) abuse the system

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#104

Post by AlbertCory » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

jimmydddd wrote: post #67

AlbertCory wrote: post #45

The heading is somewhat misleading, in that one might read it as "the troll lost all rights to any patents, ever." If you (correctly) didn't read it that way, you can ignore the rest of this. What they actually lost is that patent. It was reexamined and all its claims were cancelled. Reexamination is a standard tactic against a patent infringement suit, and we did it all the time at Google. A reexamination is a mini-…

Re "irresponsible." Most business legal matters are about money. Settling can save the company money. It's just a business decision. Those who take it personally often end up spending more time and money than is needed.

> spending more time and money than is needed

Needed for what? To make it go away for you, while the troll gets more money to extort everyone else?

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#105

Post by jdsully » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

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…

Income from patent licensing is already taxed. We don’t tax assets for existing except for land. This would be a form of wealth tax.

That said I don’t agree with software patents as a concept.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#106

Post by nonrandomstring » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #92

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 From the context it seems like a more common analogy would be better to illustrate, rather than using an example of something that almost never happens. A "use it or lose it" model to defang patentholders who don't manufacture their patents is a good idea, as well as using them as assets.

"use it or lose it" that's what I was looking for! Thanks. I see that open-carrying firearms analogies around here I'm likely to shoot myself in the foot.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#107

Post by TimTheTinker » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

extropy wrote: post #101

tepitoperrito wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to investigate this "maths disqualifier" because it completely blows my mind that companies are actively patenting the application of statistical machine learning models to their domain. For example Xometry has successfully patented "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MACHINE LEARNING PREDICTIONS OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES"[0]. To me there is literally nothing novel here, they are just describing the results of using a…

Currently there exists a widely used "being used with hardware" hoophole that allows taking pure maths and adding a bit of hardware in there "a memory unit" "a processing unit" "I/O unit" and have a valid patent.

Just like "on a computer", which allowed many previously unpatentable ideas to be patented (even potentially in previously expired patents).

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#108

Post by gerdesj » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

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…

"If IP is real property, it should be taxed."

Surely it is taxed already by profit related taxation eg corporation tax in the UK and I'm sure most other countries have a similar one. Also any sales tax or VAT will capture some loot back to your friendly local Exchequer or equivalent.

OK let's get down to brass tacks: What you seem to be asking for is that if someone can be allowed exclusive rights to something then they should pay for that privilege in some way. That seems fair enough to me but you need to define what exclusivity really means and what sort of return should be sought by the authority involved. If we look a little deeper still: what on earth is IP? You also seem to advocate that if the IP is important enough then it can be purchased by the authority and that authority could release the IP to the commons or a form of commons.

You give away where you are from with the abbreviation USPTO. So we are going to need an internationally agreed definition of IP, if we are even going to begin this discussion (which has already happened and is enshrined in ... some international agreement that I can't recall).

Back in the day there was a somewhat backward colony belonging to a super power, located to the left of the Atlantic ocean. That colony grew, expanded and exploited its natural resources. That colony also had a pretty fast and loose approach to notions like copyright and patents. That colony only acknowledged their own local notion of patent and largely ignored any objections from the right hand side of the Atlantic for quite a while. OK, I'm taking the piss but not much. There's another modern equivalent to my "left pond country" these days - more than one.

So, let's start again: What exactly is IP and how does it get enforced, paid for or protected or whatever?

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#109

Post by gerdesj » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 11:01 PM UTC

dpacmittal wrote: post #85

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…

That's how you get lead inventors dying mysteriously

Pb is poisonous. No mystery.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#110

Post by TimTheTinker » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 11:01 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #80

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…

Patents shouldn't exist at all.

Patents have served society significantly. Without them, companies would develop new technology and keep it secret, forcing others to guess or reverse-engineer the process -- at which point they would likely keep it secret as well.

So many governments give people a limited (usually If you look through the US patent archives, there are instructions for all sorts of manufacturing and construction technologies that would have never become public knowledge had patents not existed.

The problem comes when a company successfully patents an idea that's already publicly known, or an idea that is strictly mathematical or abstract enough to be used against others but not concrete enough to be turned into a successful product.