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

171–180 of 236 posts

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#171

Post by bobv »

fredwilson wrote: post #99
CPlatypus wrote: post #11

The 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…

we don't do that at USV and never have. i agree that the VC industry is guilty of that practice, but we are not.

Not nearly good enough as an answer. I've watched dozens of investors pressure founders about patents. Usually it's in the guise of the valuation of a company - what intellectual property am I investing in? - and the idea of defending himself later is used as a rationalization.

It doesn't matter at all whether Fred's firm does this. Union Square Ventures isn't suing Facebook either, that's another behavior they're not engaging in. They're also not actually coding software.

What matters is that Fred wrote a seething post about the patent system without mentioning how many if not most bogus patents get created in the first place - at the urging of the other guys on his side of the table.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#172

Post by PassTheAmmo »

angersock wrote: post #156
kd5bjo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that a lot of people think that we need substantive patent reform, but what I haven't heard is any real proposal except for scrapping the entire system (or possibly just for software). I've put together the basics of a proposal here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698637 I'm sure that it has a lot of problems, but we need to start having the discussion of how to fix the system, instead of just whether…

I replied to a couple points in your thread. Long story short, kill patents, kill copyright, keep trademark.

There would be huge problems with killing copyright IMHO. Most open source licenses are based on it for example.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-party...

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#173

Post by kd5bjo »

angersock wrote: post #156
kd5bjo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that a lot of people think that we need substantive patent reform, but what I haven't heard is any real proposal except for scrapping the entire system (or possibly just for software). I've put together the basics of a proposal here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698637 I'm sure that it has a lot of problems, but we need to start having the discussion of how to fix the system, instead of just whether…

I replied to a couple points in your thread. Long story short, kill patents, kill copyright, keep trademark.

Without copyright, for example, movies would have to recoup (most of) their production costs before ever showing the film to the public. Once they do, there is huge incentive for theaters to obtain third-party copies and show them without any remuneration to the moviemakers. There are similar arguments for books, music, and video games. How do you propose that this would work in practice?

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#174

Post by Karunamon »

PassTheAmmo wrote: post #172
angersock wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied to a couple points in your thread. Long story short, kill patents, kill copyright, keep trademark.

There would be huge problems with killing copyright IMHO. Most open source licenses are based on it for example. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-party...

Wouldnt it then shift from being a copyright enforcement issue to a contract/license enforcement issue? I.e. you agreed to share your source code if you distribute, but now you didn't, so sue city?

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#175

Post by moldbug »

monochromatic wrote: post #169
moldbug wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> An analogy absolutely draws a comparison.

An analogy illustrates common logical features of two commensurate problems. Man:woman, bull:cow. If I state this analogy to my wife, am I "comparing" her to a cow?

> 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.

If the groupthink is right, yes. Groupthink isn't always right. It isn't always wrong. It's not wrong about Hitler. It's not wrong about patents, either.

> I write patents for inventors.

In other words, you're a patent lawyer.

I'm quite confident that you have never, ever once told any of your "inventors" the following: yes, I can get this patent issued. But I don't feel it's genuinely novel or non-obvious, so you'll have to find another advocate.

"The rockets go up - who knows where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun."

> 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.

And if they did - you wouldn't want to know, would you? Since you're a patent lawyer, you probably know the term mens rea.

> 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.

Since you're a patent lawyer, you know perfectly well that our patent system does not have the power to distinguish between "inventors" and "trolls." You also know perfectly well that the controlling legal authorities do not have the power to identify and bar "software patents," "business method patents," etc. Legally there are no software patents in Europe, for instance, but the patent bar is not to be stopped. Same with the Supremes in Parker v. Flook.

Therefore, the only practical reform of this system is to destroy it entirely. This would change your life, wouldn't it? And not for the better.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#176

Post by kd5bjo »

Karunamon wrote: post #174
PassTheAmmo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be huge problems with killing copyright IMHO. Most open source licenses are based on it for example. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-party...

Wouldnt it then shift from being a copyright enforcement issue to a contract/license enforcement issue? I.e. you agreed to share your source code if you distribute, but now you didn't, so sue city?

But if there is no copyright, there is no need to license the software, you can just copy it without agreeing to anything. That's what it means for something to be in the public domain.

Contracts are only valid if there is an exchange of value; you could reasonably argue that there is no value in being granted a right you already have.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#177

Post by moldbug »

Tossrock wrote: post #155
moldbug wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we bring Hitler into the conversation? No one needs to be "educated" in the intricate and fascinating political and economic power dynamics of the Third Reich to have a valid opinion about Hitler. All they need to know is that Hitler killed the Jews and was evil. Similarly, no one posting here needs to know anything about the technical details of patentology, a subject in which I suspect you're quite expert, to k…

Are you seriously comparing patents to genocide? Is that really what's happening here? One, get some class. Two, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

Honey, before you were born I had some great flamewars with Mike Godwin on rec.arts.sf-lovers.

HN is really turning into Reddit, isn't it?

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#179

Post by bborud »

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.

Patent reform is not going to happen until people start hating the player. Whenever someone says "don't hate the player" we end up a little bit further away from patent reform.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#180

Post by shapeshed »

This is like watching a once great sports team play in a rusty, deserted stadium. This hurts so much because Yahoo helped make the a web a beautiful, free place where humans could create and communicate. They once understood that but are now reduced to mugging full pockets in back alleys. Pretty clear the company is being run by stooges and fee chasing lawyers now and is sinking fast.
Post reply on HN