Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win • Hacker News Board

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#21

Post by tsotha » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:10 AM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #4

_sentient wrote: post #2

What would it take, specifically, to bring about meaningful patent reform? I hear about the need for it almost daily, but I'm not sure how this sort of highly convoluted problem can be fixed. Are there any existing bills or proposals that have put forward a viable solution to this issue?

I think we're watching it now, actually. Big companies get the short end of the stick on crappy patents. It won't be long before they're lobbying to get it fixed. If a major company like Apple, Google, Microsoft or IBM sues a tiny company for violating an "obvious" patent, it gets all over the tech media and the big companies reputation suffers. And there's not much money in suing small companies, so it's not worth i…

>And there's not much money in suing small companies, so it's not worth it.

This is too simplistic. The patent system is the way it is because big companies like it that way. The reason they like it that way is they can strangle any nascent competition with patent lawsuits before that competition has a chance to grab market share.

And it doesn't even matter whether or not the claim is valid - small companies can't afford to defend themselves, whether or not they win in court. The point of suing a small company for patent infringement isn't to collect money, it's to put that company out of business.

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#22

Post by wavephorm » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:11 AM UTC

As long as they target other software patent trolls like Microsoft and Apple I'd be perfectly fine with it. They could become the batman of the patent world.

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#23

Post by derleth » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:20 AM UTC

ohyes wrote: post #15

The real issue here is the hegemony that gives a single coalition governments the ability dictate worldwide patent and copyright law. It seems that if that didn't exist, people interested in innovating and creating great, new, things would just go to the countries that didn't have forcefully draconian IP laws. Sure, maybe there are some advantages to having patents, but in their current form for software, they are a…

> the harder they troll, the more obviously broken the system will be, and the more likely it is to get fixed

You're betting that the fix won't be to do something that effectively restricts patent protection to a fixed number of companies, maybe restricting patent litigation to those companies in a patent collective that, no, you can't join.

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#24

Post by lwat » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:25 AM UTC

jbarham wrote: post #13

nh wrote: post #5

Interesting to note, the law-firm representing Mr. Doyle pays new graduates a starting salary of $177,500. [1] [1] www.mckoolsmith.com/careers-summer.html

Considering the insane hours legal associates have to work for several years for the do-or-die chance at making partner, I wouldn't begrudge them that salary.

Can't they just hire two people for half the price and make them work normal hours?

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#25

Post by btilly » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:28 AM UTC

jbarham wrote: post #14

_sentient wrote: post #2

What would it take, specifically, to bring about meaningful patent reform? I hear about the need for it almost daily, but I'm not sure how this sort of highly convoluted problem can be fixed. Are there any existing bills or proposals that have put forward a viable solution to this issue?

The internet is global, legal jurisdictions are national. If the business risk of infringing patents becomes too high in the US, it creates an incentive for companies doing business online to move legal jurisdictions, or for other countries to offer incentives to internet based companies by guaranteeing that they will not support software patents. Presumably at that point pressure for patent reform in the US would in…

If you wish to do business in the USA, you cannot ignore US patent law. Therefore moving out of the US is a hardship for you with absolutely no potential upside.

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#26

Post by drcube » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:28 AM UTC

_sentient wrote: post #2

What would it take, specifically, to bring about meaningful patent reform? I hear about the need for it almost daily, but I'm not sure how this sort of highly convoluted problem can be fixed. Are there any existing bills or proposals that have put forward a viable solution to this issue?

Get rid of patents. Simple, effective. Nothing convoluted about it.

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#27

Post by dangrossman » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:33 AM UTC

steve8918 wrote: post #20

dangrossman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about the web the year Mosaic was released. Before 1993 there were no web browsers that ran in Windows. There were no web search engines yet. There was little more than static hypertext webpages for research labs. There may well not have been other client-server applications yet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_World_Wide_Web

No need to link to wikipedia articles on the web, I've been using it since you were probably still in elementary school. RPC was around well before the web, as well as client-server programs. For the record, you don't need a Windows browser in order to invalidate the patent. If there are any X client-server apps that read instructions from a central server and displayed that information on its own client-side app, th…

This patent covers program objects embedded in HTML displayed in a browser. Client-server programs and X desktop apps would not be prior art for these claims. That's why they're suing Internet companies, not software companies.

Prior art would have to be something interactive that ran within a browser before the 1993 filing date. Lots of interactive network applications existed before then, but that's not what the patent claims to cover.

> I've been using it since you were probably still in elementary school.

This kind of quip does not add to the discussion or strengthen your argument. It just makes you sound arrogant and grumpy.

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#28

Post by forzano » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:37 AM UTC

lwat wrote: post #24

jbarham wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the insane hours legal associates have to work for several years for the do-or-die chance at making partner, I wouldn't begrudge them that salary.

Can't they just hire two people for half the price and make them work normal hours?

that would make too much sense

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#29

Post by ohyes » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:40 AM UTC

derleth wrote: post #23

ohyes wrote: post #15

The real issue here is the hegemony that gives a single coalition governments the ability dictate worldwide patent and copyright law. It seems that if that didn't exist, people interested in innovating and creating great, new, things would just go to the countries that didn't have forcefully draconian IP laws. Sure, maybe there are some advantages to having patents, but in their current form for software, they are a…

> the harder they troll, the more obviously broken the system will be, and the more likely it is to get fixed You're betting that the fix won't be to do something that effectively restricts patent protection to a fixed number of companies, maybe restricting patent litigation to those companies in a patent collective that, no, you can't join.

It already does that, and I don't discount that it could actually get worse instead of getting better. However, I am an optimist.

(Assuming you have a legitimate patent). Can you personally realistically sue Microsoft for patent infringement and win? No. Can a small company? No.

Why? Because the litigation would bankrupt anyone without Microsoft's coffers, and Microsoft can likely afford a better lawyer than you can anyway.

(I recall there was a movie a few years back about the guy who invented intermittent wipers and had them basically stolen by the Detroit auto-industry, it gives an interesting perspective on the matter. Basically, fighting the auto-companies ruined his life, ended his productivity as an inventor, and bankrupted him. By the time he was rewarded for his invention, he was old).

So, it is already a one way street in that regard, with the exception of patent trolls, who are large entities with lots of money which actually have the ability to sue the likes of Microsoft and Google and have a realistic chance of winning.

It should also not be discounted that patent trolls exist on the same time-scale as megacorps (potentially immortal), where as humans are extremely feeble and limited in their life-spans (last time I checked).

I'm getting very devil's advocatey here, as I really think software patents are a bad idea, in general. Copyright is already enough protection for software, patents just give entrenched entities a big bunker to hurl grenades from.

Re: Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

#30

Post by olefoo » Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 3:56 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #25

jbarham wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet is global, legal jurisdictions are national. If the business risk of infringing patents becomes too high in the US, it creates an incentive for companies doing business online to move legal jurisdictions, or for other countries to offer incentives to internet based companies by guaranteeing that they will not support software patents. Presumably at that point pressure for patent reform in the US would in…

If you wish to do business in the USA, you cannot ignore US patent law. Therefore moving out of the US is a hardship for you with absolutely no potential upside.

Fortunately for many people, the US is not the only country.

Millions of companies survive and thrive without doing business in the US. At this time in history, we are used to thinking of the US as being a favorable business climate; relatively free of corruption with clear rules and low cost of business formation. It is clear that unless current trends are reversed that this will not remain the case.

If the governments of the countries of Northern Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Morocco) were to form a regional economic initiative that created those conditions from the Suez Canal to the Atlantic Coast and created a clean Intellectual Property regime with automatic licensing they would attract a decent share of global technology investment if they could make it stick.

Automatic licensing in this context being the rule that no one can deny another the use of an invention, but proven priority and disclosure grants an automatic share of the license collected out of the VAT or other tax on finished goods.