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

131–140 of 197 posts

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#131

Post by robocat »

perihelions wrote: post #123
gralx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> not paid RPI or Leigh Rothschild for this settlement

That statement still leaves a lot of people that they could have paid for that settlement (or paid RPI/Leigh for a different settlement).

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#132

Post by nceqs3 »

linuxhansl wrote: post #117

Software patents and patents on business processes should not be allowed. Period. An idea has no cost and society does not benefit from granting monopolies on ideas. Note that I am referring specifically to patents, not Copyright. Copyright protects a specific _expression_ of an idea and is an important concept. This is true for both proprietary and open source software. Also other areas where research is an enormous…

Well you are in luck because neither of the types of patents you cited can be patented at all.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#133

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#134

Post by throwaway82652 »

tssva wrote: post #19
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #10

Good on Mr. Smith. But was he in any way involved with the legal defense team for GNOME? The story reads to me like GNOME spent $150k on a legal defense that saved themselves and carved out a little niche for FOSS projects, but otherwise allowed the patent troll to continue profiting from this patent. > Of course, that’s little comfort to the 20+ victims attacked after GNOME with the now-proven-worthless Rothschild ‘…

When GNOME was raising the 150k they said they would not settle and would battle until the patent was overturned. People donated based upon this and then GNOME settled. This is why when things like the he said/she said argument with System 76 have come up I am mystified that some people are ready to believe GNOME's take. They have already shown that they are a project whose leadership's word can't be trusted.

>I am mystified that some people are ready to believe GNOME's take

I won't comment on the issue itself, but the way you're framing this is total and complete nonsense. GNOME didn't have a "take", it was a blog written independently by one developer. You're confusing the Foundation itself with random developers. AFAIK System 76 also never put out any official statements, it was again more random unofficial statements by random employees. I would actually be more disappointed if either of these organizations' management was wasting their time making official statements on pointless open source drama.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#135

Post by linuxhansl »

nceqs3 wrote: post #132
linuxhansl wrote: post #117

Software patents and patents on business processes should not be allowed. Period. An idea has no cost and society does not benefit from granting monopolies on ideas. Note that I am referring specifically to patents, not Copyright. Copyright protects a specific _expression_ of an idea and is an important concept. This is true for both proprietary and open source software. Also other areas where research is an enormous…

Well you are in luck because neither of the types of patents you cited can be patented at all.

Come on. This is not helpful. I am well aware of how these patents are phrased (apparatus, etc, etc) to work around the fact that just software cannot be patented, having been involved with quite a few of them.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#136

Post by TimTheTinker »

Gigachad wrote: post #119
TimTheTinker wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They still keep it secret though. The patent system didn't allow us to work out how all the proprietary microcontrollers and SoCs work so we have projects like the one trying to reverse engineer the M1. And the publish this reverse engineering for free without the help of the patent system. Half of the patents are on absolutely trivial stuff that reverse engineering means looking at it for 1 minute.

Early US patents weren't like this. The major problems we're dealing with today didn't appear until later.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#137

Post by car_analogy »

btrettel wrote: post #21
coolhoody wrote: post #4

> “offers a number of ways to wirelessly share photos online such as through social media.” How was it possible to patent this in 2018? https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/50/f8/a8e7c12...

> How was it possible to patent this in 2018? Easy. I'm a former patent examiner and in my view, the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. Most people here don't understand how patents are granted. Patent examiners don't get a lot of time. If I'm an examiner, and I can't find it in the time provided, and the application doesn't have some other issues (101, 112, etc.), the…

While I agree the USPTO should be better funded and examiners should have more time, what I find problematic is the attitude of the current approach, and of your solutions. That there is a torrent of bad patents, and the USPTO needs enough resources to fight them off, or they'll break through.

No! The USPTO is not a defending army trying to keep out barbarians. It grants patents. If it does not have time, or resources, then it does not grant patents. If the patent examiner feels they don't have enough time, the patent is denied - too bad. You can re-file, paying a fee for extended examination.

I feel any reform which does not change this approach will have only limited effectiveness, as patents will simply increase their complexity to make them more difficult to examine, until junk makes it through again. The USPTO must have the ability to say no.

P.S.: I feel I should bring up non-obviousness - prior-art is not the only disqualifier. It should disqualify all of these "do specific but obvious thing, on a computer" "inventions", prior-art or not. Perhaps the filer could be required to explain why their invention is non-obvious, saving the examiner some time.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#138

Post by AlbertCory »

educaysean wrote: post #126
jimmydddd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hear.

The troll's business model is:

1. Buy patent (after due diligence) 2. Sue lots of easy marks (companies like OP's that will just write a check) 3. Use that money to fund suits against the tougher targets 4. Go for the big payday (a large jury verdict against a major company)

Where am I getting this? We had a talk by a former troll when I was in Google Legal.

So OP is at #2.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#139

Post by webmaven »

chmod775 wrote: post #115
btrettel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How was it possible to patent this in 2018? Easy. I'm a former patent examiner and in my view, the root cause of most bad patents is obviously the lack of time patent examiners get. Most people here don't understand how patents are granted. Patent examiners don't get a lot of time. If I'm an examiner, and I can't find it in the time provided, and the application doesn't have some other issues (101, 112, etc.), the…

That's ridiculous. Having lots of such work is no excuse to do it worse. It is however an excuse to have a growing backlog. When it takes 10 years to have a patent granted governments will do something about it, but they won't if you "make do". Appointments for certain government offices in my municipality are booked for 3 months in advance right now. It made the news and the local government is increasing staff. Thi…

> Having lots of such work is no excuse to do it worse. It is however an excuse to have a growing backlog.

Unfortunately, examiners are evaluated based upon the number of applications they process.

Furthermore, when an examiner denies a patent or a claim, the patent application can be amended and refiled. Over and over again. Until the examiner grants the patent. Which still only counts as one patent toward the examiner's quota.

So, that backlog that you're imagining sitting there passively waiting actually represents an ever growing workload for the examiners, while their career-limiting KPIs get worse and worse.

Re: Gnome patent troll stripped of patent rights

#140

Post by Aachen »

nceqs3 wrote: post #130
Aachen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure you understood me.

> Pretty wild to see HN users say that startups should not be allowed to compete with incumbents.

Pretty wild to be so misinterpreted. Of course startups should be able to use a patent. The point is just that an entity that does not make use of it also does not get to make use of the exclusivity granted.

A "startup" that only exists to enforce patents would be the definition of a patent troll afaik, hence me liking the idea that one needs to use the patent to make use of its rights. (Edit, Wikipedia: "Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question.")

> how could MegaCompetitor block further use without a lawsuit (which could result in an injunction)?

Who said anything about "without a lawsuit"? See the part where I said that patents should perhaps only:

>> be enforceable by those that produce the invention

So when MegaCompetitor makes wipers from the example above, they can enforce that EvilCorp doesn't make wipers during the patent's validity period. Since the government has a monopoly on force, that means they need a lawsuit with an injunction as goal. (I'm not a lawyer though, nor natively English, hope I'm understanding and using the word injunction correctly.)

Post reply on HN