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

121–130 of 197 posts

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#121

Post by linuxhansl »

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…

This! I love this!!

Either patents have a place and value, and they should be taxed (even when you are not using them to actually build anything). Or they shouldn't exist.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#122

Post by kstrauser »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #116
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 is insane, and we should just not tax property instead :)

If you're asking the government to protect your property from people encroaching on it, provide court systems to address disputes over it, or accept other government services to maintain it, you should be taxed on it.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#123

Post by perihelions »

gralx wrote: post #49
tedivm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Gnome website they didn't have to pay their lawyers, so I'm wondering where that money went. > GNOME was represented pro-bono by Matt Berkowitz, Kieran Kieckhefer, Joy Wang and Larry Crouch from Shearman & Sterling LLP. https://foundation.gnome.org/2020/05/20/patent-case-against-...

I suspect it went into the settlement payment. Wouldn't it be ironic if so many principled advocates of open source and supporters of the GNOME project had their funds paid directly to a patent troll by GNOME themselves?

GNOME did not pay in the original settlement.

- "I can confirm that we have not paid RPI or Leigh Rothschild for this settlement."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23264806

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#124

Post by munk-a »

amelius wrote: post #100
javajosh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is at the root of a broader problem with the judicial system, which is that it systematically fails to do its job in a timely manner. But that's okay with the actors, because they bill by the hour. That's not exaggeration or hyperbole; I've never seen a class of people do less for more than attorneys and judges, who go out of their way to be pleasant and accommodating to each other, with total disregard for the…

I think we need a Department of Anti-Perverse Incentives.

While I assume this comment was mostly a joke - most of these cases are covered by either the GOA or the Senate/House Ethics Committees - but partisanship has caused these tools to be de-toothed: @see continued insistence by elected officials that the 2020 election was rigged and the lack of consequences.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#125

Post by klabb3 »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #110
pitaj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

> Without [patents], companies would develop new technology and keep it secret, forcing others to guess or reverse-engineer the process

That would be awful! Thank god we avoided this dystopian nightmare.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#126

Post by educaysean »

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.

Well obviously it was a "business decision". Are we supposed to be moved by the fact that the ultimate decision was based on greed?

Companies can care about their bottom line while serving their community in a responsible manner. Companies going carbon neutral are doing it to improve their image, etc. but the consequences have net benefits for the society. No one's going to call that irresponsible. Feeding the patent troll market with the money that was donated to fight them off? Irresponsible.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#127

Post by klabb3 »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #66
LosWochosWeek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I fully agree with you (and it's one of the few strongly held opinions of mine), but I'm not really sure why you would bring this up within the context of patent trolls. Patents do run out, rather quickly even. It's other intellectual property -- namely copyright --…

Understood, please allow me clarify. Not to get off-topic with copyright despite being an "older author", notwithstanding the sibling comments, I'd agree it's too long. Now, it's nice that patents time-out quite quickly, and indeed that motivates for useful development, but what I'm talking about is adding serial (AND) conditions that require they're capable of being used. Alice has a fresh patent on a method for man…

I like the spirit of this idea but wouldn't this just incentivize mega conglomerates to acquire patents? Or are you hoping that they will act in better faith than the pure trolls?

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#128

Post by [deleted] »

kstrauser wrote: post #120
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…

Darn straight. IP values could be self-assessed: you tell the IRS (or equivalent) how much they're worth. However, if you're suing over a violation, that's the official value of the asset. You can't claim $100M in damages on an asset if you're only paying taxes on $30,000 worth of property.

[deleted]

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#129

Post by pkaye »

I had this idea on how to stop prior art being patented. Require the patenting entity put some money in escrow for say one year and if anyone in the public supplies prior art to invalidate that patent, they get the money as a reward.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#130

Post by nceqs3 »

Aachen wrote: post #78
nceqs3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The suit always comes after they try to license (a.k.a settle) and are denied.

If you're only suing different parties that independently also discovered your invention, that's a different thing than trying to sell your patent to an entity that is actually going to produce the invention and make use of it. Maybe patents should indeed only be enforceable by those that produce the invention (practicing entities as it was called above, not sure if that's an official term or something they came up w…

In your absurd hypothetical, how could MegaCompetitor block further use without a lawsuit (which could result in an injunction)?

You are now advocating for only MegaCorps to own patents. Pretty wild to see HN users say that startups should not be allowed to compete with incumbents.

Post reply on HN