Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 219 posts

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#171

Post by [deleted] »

drschwabe wrote: post #48
myshpa wrote: post #6

Why Software Patents are Bad, Period. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0027 Patents are out of control, and they’re hurting innovation https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/patents-are-out-of-control... Economic and Game Theory Against Intellectual Monopoly https://web.archive.org/web/20120121014753/https://levine.ss... PATENTS AND INNOVATION IN ECONOMIC HISTORY https://gwern.net/doc/economics/2016-moser.pdf Historical rec…

Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here? On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents. And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application p…

[deleted]

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#172

Post by neltnerb »

le-mark wrote: post #153
drschwabe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points > Anyway, defending a patent requires some deep pockets, and if you don't defend them, they are just cost with no benefit. unless you just need them for gov't grants that require them - in this case it's an investment into a pre-requisite and if the net capital from the grant is higher than the cost of the patent you got then hypothetically you are ahead; unless there are recurring/other expenses involved…

Can anyone comment on which government grants require a patent?

SBIR grants will see it as a positive if you have a potential monopoly. They want you to have a successful business and a valid exit strategy is to sell out the IP or license it.

Require is a strong word, it's just a strategy they recognize as valid.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#173

Post by tsimionescu »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #109
joemullin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware that there are allegedly "bad" IPRs including the OpenSky case. The alleged "extortion" here is that VLSI, a non-practicing entity, I believe backed by a hedge fund, would lose their 20-year government monopoly and no longer be able to seek billions of dollars in court. I have no idea who or what OpenSky is, and I don't weigh in on huge corporate cases like VLSI v. Intel where everyone has plenty of money f…

> But here's the value proposition: It's just not wrong to challenge a government subsidy or monopoly. Period. Especially on computer software and hardware, because they're often wrongly granted. I see where you're coming from, but I would suggest that this is pretty much an extremist point of view on intellectual property protections. It's easy to say that the online shopping cart is a dumb patent (because it is, an…

Your arguments contradict each other. If the patent system actually protects innovation, why did VLSI's IP get successfully copied?

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#174

Post by nicce »

telecuda wrote: post #140

The most useful thing about software patents IMO is what you uncover during the patent writing process. When you’re sitting there writing the equivalent of a 10-20 page college essay on the problem background, operating environment, then all the present and future uses of something novel (the provisional stage), it forces you to think in a way that no typical product management process does. There are few (any?) othe…

If your design or method is new and unique, just a write scientific paper about it. It is about the same.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#175

Post by TylerE »

thfuran wrote: post #57
lend000 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to have enforceable NDA's, keep things as trade secrets, and have a well built organization that simply continuously out-innovates AND out-executes the competition. I think patents are okay, but the maximum duration should be 5 years and there needs to be some proof of utilization of the patent to sue for damages. 20 year patents are ridiculous, and it seems like even in the 1800's that should have been cons…

The term (in the US) wasn't originally that long. It was decided individually but not to exceed 14 years. That's long, but much more reasonable in a time when it could take months for just some basic roundtrip long-distance correspondence.

I don't think you can just state that in good faith while ignoring how much harder/more expensive R&D is these days.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#176

Post by teruakohatu »

d--b wrote: post #170
teruakohatu wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AlphaGo What about AlphaGo? The Reinforcement Learning methods? The Monte Carlo tree search? The Deep Learning? DeepMind didn't invent any of these things but applied them in a novel way. If everything was software patented, AlphaGo may not have existed.

Again not saying I am for patents. Just answering the original question. Did AlphaGo bring anything new to the table? Hell yeah.

> Did AlphaGo bring anything new to the table? Hell yeah.

It is incredible software and deserves the Turning Prize, no question. But what new patentable tech did they invent?

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#177

Post by d--b »

teruakohatu wrote: post #176
d--b wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again not saying I am for patents. Just answering the original question. Did AlphaGo bring anything new to the table? Hell yeah.

> Did AlphaGo bring anything new to the table? Hell yeah. It is incredible software and deserves the Turning Prize, no question. But what new patentable tech did they invent?

Patentable tech doesn't have to be from the ground up. If you design something that solves a problem that wasn't solvable prior to your invention - regardless of the tech it is based on - it definitely qualifies for a patent.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#178

Post by teruakohatu »

d--b wrote: post #177
teruakohatu wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did AlphaGo bring anything new to the table? Hell yeah. It is incredible software and deserves the Turning Prize, no question. But what new patentable tech did they invent?

Patentable tech doesn't have to be from the ground up. If you design something that solves a problem that wasn't solvable prior to your invention - regardless of the tech it is based on - it definitely qualifies for a patent.

> Patentable tech doesn't have to be from the ground up. If you design something that solves a problem that wasn't solvable prior to your invention - regardless of the tech it is based on - it definitely qualifies for a patent.

I asked twice what specific patentable tech they invented and you declined to answer.

It is a straw man to suggest I was arguing against about any specific thing being patentable.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#179

Post by pas »

omginternets wrote: post #168
linuxhansl wrote: post #68

I have a challenge out to all my friends: "Show me one, just one, software patent that is not obvious to someone skilled the field, and I will stop my annoying diatribes about how bad software patents are." To this day I have yet to see to a useful software patent.

ARC cache is only obvious after it’s been shown to you. Whether or not software patents are a good thing is an entirely separate question (one on which I suspect we agree, in fact) but software patents can and do contain actual non-obvious inventions.

ARC is not completely obvious, sure, true, but it's a very very very hard stretch to call it worthy of 20 years of monopoly.

It simply seems like a multi-tier cache (which it is, after all, it's 4 LRU duct taped together in a useful way).

And, maybe there's nothing wrong with the 20 years, the problem is how hard much it costs to license it, how much the whole discovery process costs to the whole industry.

Re: Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

#180

Post by varispeed »

joemullin wrote: post #53
drschwabe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the links. How do you suggest startup entrepreneurs work around the broader moral dillemma here? On one had, we shouldn't feed the flames but on the other hand - we may need a foundation of patents for defensive measure or to reaslitically compete against the likes of IBM who have a gajillion patents. And I'm aware of at least one government grant programs that requires patents apart of their application p…

Can you point me to the government grant program that requires patents as part of the application process? That is potentially very concerning. I would be interested to learn more.

I've personally witnessed venture capital firms requiring patent filings as a prerequisite for funding. An acquaintance of mine once worked for a startup where the team was diverted from product development to ideation on patentable processes. The focus was less on innovation and more on creating a unique claim to secure funding, which I find misguided.

The VC, instead of nurturing the inventive process, largely contributed to the crafting of a patent application. The objective was to design it in such a way that it was cryptic and as widely applicable as possible. Despite its questionable practices, the patent was approved, leading to the subsequent funding of the startup.

However, the market didn't respond well to the idea, necessitating a pivot. Meanwhile, there were other companies independently pursuing similar ideas. They could have invested significant time and resources, unaware that they were infringing on an existing patent. It's a speculative guess, but I can't help but wonder if the VC fund is vigilantly searching for successful implementations of the patented idea, ready to initiate lawsuits for patent infringement. This illustrates the potential misuse of patents, which, rather than fostering innovation, sometimes stifle it.

Post reply on HN