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

191–200 of 236 posts

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#191

Post by nilsbunger »

nilsbunger wrote: post #189
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.

For reform, the trick is to find a solution that works at two ends of the spectrum: 1) A pharma company spends $1B on R&D to develop a drug and get FDA approval. If someone could knock off the resulting compound at 10 cents per pill, we wouldn't have the drug. 2) Software companies, where there are hundreds of potential patents to file or infringe on, and there is tons of iterative evolution.

Maybe reform could happen by fixing how damages are awarded? Like if you infringe on some patent that is a small part of a product, you pay a $100 fine or something? That would remove the financial incentive to sue unless you can prove someone's whole business is built on your ideas...

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#193

Post by nilsbunger »

nikcub wrote: post #44
gaius wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fiduciary duty doesn't mean attempt to maximize revenue and profits at all costs [1] besides, I would argue that the cost in both goodwill and brand value of pursuing a strategy of patent licensing far outweigh the potential benefits. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule#Standard...

If Yahoo has any "brand value", it's with users who are very non-technical, and have no idea or opinions about patent lawsuits.

So brand isn't a good argument against this suit for Yahoo.

Morality might be. But it's hard to get people to act against their financial best interest over the long term, so I still feel the real issue is the patent system.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#194

Post by nilsbunger »

Jach wrote: post #119
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.

R&D costs actually make up a pretty small portion of the pie. It's unclear what if anything patents are doing to recoup those since they're all just copying each other with designer drugs that are just slightly different enough to not violate someone else's patent. The pharma industry is probably a better example than the software industry for why patents suck. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf

It costs ~$1B to bring a pharmaceutical to market because of the amount of testing and clinical trials required to make sure you're doing more good than harm. Of course some are copycat drugs, but that's going to be inevitable.

There are real advances too, and those wouldn't happen without some ability to generate a return on the $1B or more you spent on the drug (let alone the hundreds of millions on drugs that didn't make it).

R&D being a small part of the budget doesn't change that. The fundamental business is still based on the patent system.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#195

Post by kd5bjo »

cabalamat wrote: post #188
kd5bjo wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Without copyright, for example, movies would have to recoup (most of) their production costs before ever showing the film to the public. Kinda true, although lots of films make more money through merchandising than the box office. But even in that situation, why can't movies be funded by crowdsourcing? I'm sure there's lots of fans of LoTR who'd be happy to crwodfund The Hobbit, for example.

In a copyright-free world, that merchandise could be made by anyone; there's no guarantee that any merchandising money will make it back to the movie's creators.

Crowdfunding can be a viable option, but paying large sums of money before any work is done makes it tempting to abscond with most of the money and produce either an inferior or nonexistent product. How would you prevent this from happening on a regular basis? Would your solution make it too risky to attempt large projects out of fear of them not being deemed "good enough"?

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#196

Post by harryh »

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…

Any chance you could post (or privately send to me) information about the process by which you contractually set up patents so they can only be used defensively? I'm very much interested in doing the same.

BTW, you're taking a lot of heat in this thread that you don't deserve. I work at a VC funded startup (with USV as an investor no less) and I basically agree with you.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#197

Post by joshu »

law wrote: post #184

Thomas Jefferson's 1788 quote, in a way, portends this: "the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." The dictionary definition of government ("authoritative direction or control") ostensibly extends this to encompass corporations. Patents are merely one of many tactics for corporations gain control; it's nothing new, and it ought to be expected. Notwithstanding the foreseeab…

Laws are generated by a largely accretive process. The corresponding ablative process is missing. I wonder if this is key to the imbalance?

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#198

Post by cs702 »

barrynolan wrote: post #54
cs702 wrote: post #17

This title is unnecessarily sensational. Why not use the actual title of the post ("Yahoo! Crosses the Line")?

I did consider the title, and was about to go with the original. Fred is one of the best writers out there - insight, humor, compassion, humility, honesty. I thought his closing remarks really captured his rare but real venom at the shakedown. Nothing more than that.

barrynolan,

Thanks. Now that I understand your reasoning, I have no problem with the title. FWIW, I wish I could delete my comment, but unfortunately that's no longer possible.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#199

Post by Steko »

law wrote: post #184

Thomas Jefferson's 1788 quote, in a way, portends this: "the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." The dictionary definition of government ("authoritative direction or control") ostensibly extends this to encompass corporations. Patents are merely one of many tactics for corporations gain control; it's nothing new, and it ought to be expected. Notwithstanding the foreseeab…

"So the author's reliance on this de facto "rule not to litigate" is flawed."

And also historically ignorant. Yahoo did the same thing to Google when they went public in 2004. Somehow the world didn't end.

Re: Yahoo Crosses The Line

#200

Post by abecedarius »

endersshadow wrote: post #113
henrikschroder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Coincidentally, I just posted a huge rant against, "It's just marketing" in another thread, but I'll respond to this much less rantier. Big pharma uses patents to protect their monopoly on a drug for seven(?) years after its introduced. Once that window is up, generics come in and take a huge chunk of sales. Pharma uses marketing and advertising to push their new drugs to try to sell as many during the patent window…

I think you mean 17?
Post reply on HN