Live data from Hacker News

Patent troll claims ownership of interactive Web—and might win

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 68 posts

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

#41
post #25
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.

> If you wish to do business in the USA, you cannot ignore US patent law.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's stopping anyone from accepting money from customers in the US if their servers are outside of the US?

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

#42
post #24
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?

The lawyer's explanation for this is usually that law is the kind of subject that requires one person to centrally have access to all the facts. A distributed system won't work, unless it has shared memory which, given the fact that we're dealing with people instead of computers, isn't possible.

Think of it like surgery: would you want the brain surgeon to tap out after an 8-hour marathon session for the next guy coming in? No, because the guy who just worked 8 hours has intimate knowledge of everything relevant to the surgery in progress. The same is the case with law suits.

At least... if my friends who are layers are to be believed :)

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

#43
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter where things are created; if they infringe US patents they can't be sold in the US. Most companies can't afford to ignore that market.

In the case of open-source are you held liable if you even use it inside the US?

Possibly, but you'd have to be making some real money for the trolls to bother targeting you.

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

#44
post #38

The article contains at least one factual error. It states that Eolas never released a web browser of its own; in fact it did release one called WebRouser in 1995 (three years before the patent actually issued). For that and other reasons, I don't think Doyle can properly be called a patent troll, if such is someone who sits on a patent until it becomes valuable and then springs out of nowhere to demand a cut of prof…

1995 was 17 years ago. Why did it take 17 years to start the suits? It's not like any of this was hidden in those 17 years. Google's been around since 1998. Amazon was from 1995. Yahoo was from 1995. What part of these companies took 14-17 years to finally bring a suit to? Until I see that, he's a damn dirty patent troll taking advantage of the status quo.

Eolas sued Microsoft in 1999 and the suit took almost a decade to go through all the appeals and such. After they finished taking down MS, Eolas started working on suing everyone else. This information is out there if you bother to look...

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

#45

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.

Microsoft and by extension Nathan Myhrvold are the ones running wild with patent lawsuits and using patents to strong-arm software companies. Microsoft claims FAT32 is an important, patented invention, and is trying to wrestle back control of SMB through the same tactics. SCO's legal assault against Linux is part of all this. They've also successfully fought against Android and are now exacting stiff taxes on a lot o…

>Apple surely has an enormous stockpile of software patents, but their lawsuit activity has been pretty limited.

Yes, $100 million on lawsuits in one year is pretty limited.

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/01/24/apple-spent-staggering...

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

#46
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of open-source are you held liable if you even use it inside the US?

Possibly, but you'd have to be making some real money for the trolls to bother targeting you.

MAFIAA doesn't wait for you to make some real money before targeting you. Greediness is a bottomless pit.

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

#47
post #41
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you wish to do business in the USA, you cannot ignore US patent law. Maybe I'm missing something, but what's stopping anyone from accepting money from customers in the US if their servers are outside of the US?

See the recent kerfuffle about online gambling domain name seizures. If something is deemed illegal for US consumers, the DOJ works pretty hard to shut it down regardless of jurisdiction - although if I recall correctly, one of the triggers for seizure in the online gambling case was that the sites were clearly marketed as catering for the US consumer.

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

#49
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

It was an ok quip, but even if you're right in your assessment about how he sounds... Linking to a history of the World Wide Web on Wikipedia, on a post on Hacker News - how does that come across? It's pretty obnoxious.

It's just convenient. Not all of us are old enough to know/remember what happened twenty years ago.

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

#50
post #24
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?

They largely could. My wife is a lawyer at one of the largest law firms in the world, and a lot of what the trainees are doing could've been done by a PA or secretary, and much of it is certainly trivial to partition.

I'm sure there are legitimate reasons for some people to work long hours sometimes, but especially for the larger firms and at the lower pay grades, it's mostly a question of what makes the firm more profitable.

The reason they don't put more people on it unless they absolutely have to is money. They bill out people by the hour, but pay them a flat rate unless they are equity partners in the firm.

The harder they work them, the more they bring in for pretty much the same cost (except free dinner and paid taxi home after certain hours...), and at the same time, there's rarely an incentive for them to get their staff to work fast, as long as quality is good enough - if they're exhausted and slow down and spend more hours, it's more money for the firm.

While trainee salaries at the firm she's at isn't that far off what was mentioned above, due to the number of hours, trainees there are in effect making less per hour than the secretaries, and it takes several years post qualification to get to a decent hourly rate.

The reason they stay? A combination of wanting to make partner, which in this firm will make you millions a year, and a culture that frames it as personal failure if you don't meet deadlines that makes it impossible to actually stick to your contracted hours.

EDIT: So to specifically your question, of why not two people at half the price. People going for these types of jobs are at least in part driven to go for the high salaries. Since the pay per hour is laughable for the amount of education, if they were to halve salaries and hire twice as many people, they probably would not have many applicants.

Post reply on HN