I really don't like saying this, but here it goes: Don't hate the player, hate the game. We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.
They don't have to play this game. Once they dared to: start your hate machine.
Yahoo Crosses The Line
31–40 of 236 posts
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#32> I used to care about that company for some reason That's the strangest part. I never found Yahoo useful for anything (except Douglas Crockford, but he could have been employed anywhere).
They were useful for navigating the web between 94 and 96 or so. They then proceeded to acquire a few sites which were also useful at one point in time, (Flickr et al), although they do seem pretty good at driving such sites into irrelevancy.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#33The OP wouldn't seem quite so hypocritical if VCs didn't put immense pressure on startups to generate patents. Don't tell me those patents are supposed to be purely defensive, either. They were supposed to stake out a bit of technical turf, just like Yahoo's doing. I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think much of demanding patent generation on one hand and then complaining about their use on the other. If you wan…
I think his point was that these "Specific" patents were bogus patents in the first place... "None of them represent unique and new ideas at the time of the filing. I supect they all can be thrown out over prior art if Facebook takes the time and effort to do that." I do think that pre- IPO this is a pretty dirty play. You might have a point if you can show a case where Fred Wilson or VC's sues other companies right…
That's a fair point, but I don't think it gets very far. He also goes on to say, "I don't think there's a unique idea out there in the web space and hasn't been for well over a decade." That's a pretty common attitude. Have you ever seen anyone say "yeah, that software patent is truly novel"? Ever? I haven't, so he's not really making a distinction between these specific patents and others. Without such a distinction, he's essentially saying that any patent suit would be wrong . . . but then why do he and his ilk put such pressure on startups to generate the raw material for those suits? Whether Fred himself is actually hypocritical on this point is not clear, but without a strong statement from him about that kind of pressure - and there's none in that post - he still seems so.
Is it a bit dirty to do this immediately pre-IPO? Yeah, I think so, even absent other concerns. But Fred's comments go far beyond these specific patents at this specific time. He talks about a very general "unspoken line" that web companies shouldn't cross. It's the general statement I object to, not the specific one.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#34US Patent 7406501 ... "Conversion of an instant message to an e-mail message" WTF...Is that it?
Read the claims.
http://www.google.com/patents/US7406501?printsec=claims&...
The abstract doesn't define the patent. The claims are what defines the patent, in combination with the notes in the patent file which can often limit the claims even further.
Yahoo is claiming a specific method of seamlessly converting an instant message communication into an email one, not the general concept. Claim 1 narrows the claims from that general case immediately.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#35TBH it would be a true douche move if we were in say 2006, but right now FB is worth almost ten times more than Yahoo, so who cares? they can either buy Yahoo or even sue it into oblivion. Is not that crazy to assume this may actually be a last-resort strategy to sell Yahoo once and for all. Most agree Yang dropped the ball when he refused MSFT's offer.
The reason for the timing is because of the IPO. Yahoo! is using this as a way to make Facebook desperate to settle, so that their pricing is higher during the IPO.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#36> I used to care about that company for some reason That's the strangest part. I never found Yahoo useful for anything (except Douglas Crockford, but he could have been employed anywhere).
Their public finance pages are the best I have found (until some time later this year when we release, that is)
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#37I really don't like saying this, but here it goes: Don't hate the player, hate the game. We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.
They don't have to play this game. Once they dared to: start your hate machine.
It's a chicken-egg problem. The game will only stop once people stop playing it, but people won't stop playing it until the game stops.
And you can be sure that companies once they have lots of patents will lobby mercilessly to keep the current "game" in place. Who wants to stop playing when they feel they are winning?
Apart from some sudden massive outbreak of sanity, there is no way out.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#38The close analogy, for me, was Oracle's attempt to shake down Google.
Patents are a game that's a lot like Poker.
I couldn't blame any startup for accumulating a patent portfolio because that's something of economic value -- it could help an acquisition because a larger company would like to put together a broad portfolio.
So long as you can get value out of it that way, it's all roses. Once you get to a lawsuit, it's ugly, largely because the result is unpredictable -- if people settle out of court you get the desired result, but if your opponent can fight you to the end, you're very likely to end up with invalidated patents. That, of course, is why companies like this broad portfolios -- if there are ten patents involved, it's much more likely something will stick.
Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#39Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely. While Y! is clearly acting in desperation, this is an obvious and predictable act given the legal system in which they operate and patent portfolio they have. We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected, but I the think anger is better focused on systemic reform then getting angry at any single company's actions. In a system of laws, what else should anyone expect but a legal entity…
We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected Then you are demanding that the board neglect its fiduciary responsibilities and go to jail.
The almost-myth of the fiduciary responsibilty of company executives to be irresponsible. I wrote elsewhere [1]:
> A point about the morality of companies angle: the so-called "fiduciary duty" of companies that is an overriding duty to maximise shareholder returns within the constraints of the law above all other ends is a legal obligation in only a few countries. In most countries, including most states in the US, executives have a legal responsibility to be honest and open about their performance and honest (if not very open) about their strategy, but have no legal obligation to prefer a more profitable course of action over another, which is obviously right since there is usually no knowable fact of the matter about whether one business plan will turn out to be more profitable than another.
> In short, the idea that companies have a moral obligation to act immorally if it pays is mostly or always a myth.
There is no chance that Yahoo executives would go to jail if they decided not to pursue a cursed-earth patent troll strategy. Fiduciary duty is about executives not putting their personal interests before that of the shareholders.
It is not even obviously in the company's interest, what they are doing. If cash-rich FB refuses to settle, all 10 patents get invalidated, and Yahoo has to pay heavy legal fees, then Yahoo is left with a smaller warchest of patents, and one whose firepower has been seen to be lacking. Does the quiet period make that such an unlikely outcome?
[1]: https://plus.google.com/u/0/103703080789076472131/posts/K74a...