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

Yahoo Crosses The Line

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#161

Post by shmerl »

angersock wrote: post #159
shmerl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Those who act unethically bear the responsibility, and saying that since system is broken it's OK to abuse it just doesn't cut it. With that said, of course the system needs to be blamed (and changed) as well.

What's unethical about this? Seriously, where is the moral imperative that says "Thou Shalt Not Patent Troll"?

Seriously, isn't it obvious? Look at the purpose of the patent law. It's supposed to promote innovation for the benefit of the society, or how it formally sounds: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Software patents do exactly the opposite. They not only don't promote any innovation or progress, they stifle it.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#163

Post by angersock »

shmerl wrote: post #161
angersock wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's unethical about this? Seriously, where is the moral imperative that says "Thou Shalt Not Patent Troll"?

Seriously, isn't it obvious? Look at the purpose of the patent law. It's supposed to promote innovation for the benefit of the society, or how it formally sounds: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Software patents do exactly the opposite. They not only don't promote any innovati…

Thank you for elaborating on your position. Upvoted for content.

That said, note that this isn't an abuse of the system--it is very much using it to the letter of the law. Note further that, at least in America it would seem, we place a very high value on the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the law.

I still think there isn't a fully developed moral argument here, but at least you've elaborated on your position. For what it's worth, I think the rough sketch of the argument would go something like: scarcity is Bad, knowledge promotes nonscarcity therefore Good, patents intended to promote knowledge therefore Good, wording of patents allows companies to act to decrease knowledge there Bad.

I just wanted to make sure you had a better backing than the usual "Oh noes patents are teh evil and the abuses you see".

If we're ever going to fix this mess, we need to make sure our ideology and reasoning is in line and clear.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#164

Post by asdfasdf4321 »

viggity wrote: post #6

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.

Not to mention it's BS to pick on Yahoo.

Intellectual Ventures? Mirosoft threatening Amazon/numerous hardware manufacturers to pay tithes because Linux infringes on unspecified patents?

Seriously, this guy is an idiot. It's been happening forever, but usually the threat has been from the big guy.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#166

Post by larrys »

pg wrote: post #144
CPlatypus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just looked at all of Fred's comments on that thread, and saw no such thing. Please don't lie just because you find the truth about startups and patents inconvenient.

Please don't lie just because you find the truth about startups and patents inconvenient. Will you please stop? The fact that you're having to hop all over this thread defending yourself should make you reconsider what you said, not start calling third parties liars for contradicting you.

He may be wrong and he may want to consider his views based on what others are saying. He may also be annoying you and others.

But the fact that he has to "hop all over this thread defending" does not mean he is wrong in what he is saying. Edit: It just means the group here does not agree with what he is saying. The group has disagreed with what I have said in the past as well.

I appreciate hearing his views although he uses language that I wouldn't use "lie" etc.

But I also don't believe in bullying. Saying "will you please stop?" in a "we don't need you around here" way seems parental and a put down to me regardless of whether it's deserved or not.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#167

Post by el_presidente »

angersock wrote: post #159
shmerl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Those who act unethically bear the responsibility, and saying that since system is broken it's OK to abuse it just doesn't cut it. With that said, of course the system needs to be blamed (and changed) as well.

What's unethical about this? Seriously, where is the moral imperative that says "Thou Shalt Not Patent Troll"?

It's a form of blackmail.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#168

Post by shmerl »

angersock wrote: post #163
shmerl wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, isn't it obvious? Look at the purpose of the patent law. It's supposed to promote innovation for the benefit of the society, or how it formally sounds: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Software patents do exactly the opposite. They not only don't promote any innovati…

Thank you for elaborating on your position. Upvoted for content. That said, note that this isn't an abuse of the system--it is very much using it to the letter of the law. Note further that, at least in America it would seem, we place a very high value on the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the law. I still think there isn't a fully developed moral argument here, but at least you've elaborated on your position.…

Something of that sort. You can also structure it as:

- Knowledge and progress are beneficial for the society. - Inventions and discoveries promote knowledge and progress. - Patents are supposed to encourage inventors to publish their work thus helping the promotion of the above. - If applied badly, patents can be misused to serve totally different goals (like monopolizing the technology or knowledge), hurting the society in result. So the system needs to avoid that.

Software patents are the perfect example of the case where the original goal is reversed. I.e. by the nature of the software, patents only hinder innovation. So they should not be applied to software at all.

And that's why I called it unethical, rather than illegal. Patent aggressors might appeal that their actions are legal (within the current broken system), but since they have negative impact on the society and serve totally the opposite goal, they are unethical.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#169

Post by monochromatic »

moldbug wrote: post #151
monochromatic wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ridiculous comparisons make you feel better about holding strong opinions on subjects you're ignorant about, then by all means. > The best lack all conviction, while the worst > Are full of passionate intensity.

An analogy is not a comparison. You know that. But lawyers love to play stupid, don't they? It sells in East Texas. Don't worry, I'm quite aware of the mechanics of our patent system. I also know a lot about Hitler. But I believe it's intellectually permissible for others to condemn Hitler in a sentence - without my extensive training in Hitler Studies. The worst in this case are not full of passionate intensity. It'…

> An analogy is not a comparison

An analogy absolutely draws a comparison. I don't even know what you're getting at here, other than trying unsuccessfully to nitpick.

> But I believe it's intellectually permissible for others to condemn Hitler in a sentence - without my extensive training in Hitler Studies.

So you think it's permissible to condemn a human being while knowing essentially nothing about him, just going by what the groupthink tells you. Got it. Because "knowing essentially nothing" is what we're talking about here. I'm not saying you need to be an attorney to comment intelligently. 15 minutes of reading, if one reads the right things, would teach him more than 90% of the people here know about patents.

> Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

How clever. Never heard that one before.

> The only people who support the patent system are those who profit from it. I'm quite sure you're one of them.

Wellll... yes, but not in the way you probably think. I'm not a patent troll, and I don't represent trolls. I write patents for inventors. Plain and simple. And for what it's worth, to my knowledge none of my clients have ever engaged in patent trolling or sold their patents to a troll.

Patent reform, coming down hard on the trolls, whatever you have in mind... it would have essentially no influence on my business. Getting rid of software patents altogether would have a small effect, but it would basically be de minimis. Certainly not enough to color my opinions about software patents.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#170

Post by kahirsch »

henrikschroder wrote: post #109
endersshadow wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM which hold a huge number of software patents and aren't exactly keen on seeing that system go away, either. But yes, big pharma relies almost exclusively on patents to recoup R&D costs.

> But yes, big pharma relies almost exclusively on patents to recoup R&D costs. What? I was under the impression that they rely mostly on advertising to recoup costs, their advertising budgets are generally much larger than their R&D budgets.

> What? I was under the impression that they rely mostly on advertising to recoup costs, their advertising budgets are generally much larger than their R&D budgets.

It's completely irrelevant what the size of their advertising budgets are. They will increase their advertising budget as long as they think that the added revenue will be larger than the added costs.

But if they have no patent protection, they will probably have no profitable product to advertise at all.

Post reply on HN