Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

blog.cloudflare.com

71–80 of 426 posts

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#71
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. And then if one of those companies sold a patent that wasn't immediately licensable to an IP firm for an immediate infusion of funds should the IP firm be considered a patent troll?

Maybe the patent system could work, without the possibility of selling patents at all? Have not thought it out, but I know musicians also seldom profit of selling their IP to the major labels. But they are pushed into it.

Based on the text of the IP clause of the US Constitution I have wondered whether selling or licensing of IP (or even assigning it to a corporation) is technically allowable.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

: 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;

"Exclusive Right" means exclusive right. And I don't think the definition has changed much since the US Constitution was written.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusive

I think it must at least be licensable, or authors couldn't sell copies of their works. But whether the IP rights can be sold is another question.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#72
post #3

At the end of the day, this is a deep legislation issue, patents should not exist at all. They are supposed to promote innovation, in practice, it's more about protecting guys who sitting and waiting for passive cash. Once we give exclusive rights to all AI stuff to Nvidia, is the world going to be a better place ? What would be with ChatGPT if Google actually had enforced (or enforces) patents on Transformers. Is th…

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we take the position that an inventor But most software patents aren't inventions; they're just brain farts with money behind them. They might not be trolls, but they went to the toilet, had some random idea I had 20000 times in my life already, but they patent it genuinely thinking it's anything original. There are many none trolls, like the famous Amazon one-click buy one; everyone in web dev invented that in…

>had some random idea I had 20000 times in my life already, Aren't patent systems already supposed to reject "inventions" that are common sense? Perhaps the problem is not the system itself but rather the humans who are approving these.

The parent system will accept pretty much anything if your lawyers ask them enough times. I've seen algorithms from the 80s patented today, with no real changes. The patent examiners have no idea what's novel or common sense, and just accept everything.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#74
post #7

Lots of patent hate in the first few comments. If we take the position that an inventor should be able to try and get profit from their invention how can we protect that without patent system?

The easiest way to understand the issue is to consider cooking.

A chef can’t sit around and think up recipes and file thousands of patents. We explicitly agree in the law that it would be incredibly backwards negatively affect society if chefs got exclusivity on recipes and could sue home cooks for being creative. And chefs are still thinking up new recipes and using them in their restaurants because unique meals and flavors offer a competitive advantage. The reward is that you can keep your profits in our capitalist society. See Coca Cola and KFC. You have to use your knowledge in a novel invention to benefit.

In the same spirit, it’s not wanted to have people sit around and ideate about which instructions, and in what order, when fed to a processor machine, make it do useful things. Thousands of people program processors every day and we don’t want them getting sued because someone else figure out an efficient way to reverse a linked list. You have to run a software service that provides value and get people’s money that way.

Even if we concede that patents are useful in their intended purpose to protect actual manifest inventions, not just ideas (patent office is supposed to require a prototype invention to be registered with your patent), that’s certainly not what patent trolls are doing and that’s not how the majority of software patents work.

For the purpose of discussion, to get close conceptually to some sane type of sane SW patent scheme you’d have to 1. make a linked list reversing library, 2. register the complete prototype source code with the patent office, and 3. be actively maintaining and selling your linked list reversing library for your patent to even start to hold water. But even then you’re running up against problem that software is purely algorithms (just like recipes) and those aren’t even originally patent-able.

Apple can’t patent an “object oriented operating system” unless they’re offering that system in isolation and as a whole to consumers for use, which they’re not, but someone at the patent office got tricked into granting them a patent. Patents are supposed protect the inventors of complete products, not tiny building blocks of knowledge (algorithms). The “patent hate” is because despite the arguably good initial conditions, the patent system has been abused by greedy people who are not benefiting society in any way whatsoever. And you should be infuriated by that.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issuing a license is a form of "using it" in a use it or lose it scenario. Those are not patent troll companies. Patent troll companies file patents and then sit on the patent until they can sue another party for infringement, and never make an attempt to commercialize their patent. Another example of not using it in the use it or lose it scenario is Pfizer's acquisition of Esperion Therapeutics in 2004. Esperion was…

What's your bargaining position when you lose a patent that might be useful for only a few companies if you don't issue a license?

If it's only useful to a few companies then it must be niche IP and therefore valuable.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#77
post #31

There needs to be a "use it or lose it" doctrine/law around technological IP. I get all the arguments around creating a market for the patent rights, but it just leads to these bottom feeders creating no value and increasing costs for the industry and consumers.

Whilst good intentioned, it might well work the other way:

Dedicated patent trolls will trivially overcome any hurdles by cheaply doing just enough to legally demonstrate they are working on future commercial applications blah blah honest.

Meanwhile, it likely puts up a prohibitive cost that will prevent the smallest genuine inventors from inventing?

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#78
post #38
post #7

Lots of patent hate in the first few comments. If we take the position that an inventor should be able to try and get profit from their invention how can we protect that without patent system?

patents were intended to protect the little-guy, the inventor (meaning a person), with an artificial monopoly so he could make money. they weren't intended to be used by huge companies to help further their already impressive monopolistic empires. they collect them and use them as a kind of insurance or mutual-assued-destruction policy. microsoft won't sue ibm (and so on) because both have such a vast portfolio of ga…

Granting intention over centuries-old institutions is a fools errand.

Whatever the people that created them intended, they were used at first to grant favors to well connected people (some times for good reasons, other times not), and then to enable industrial monopolies on planned economies.

That last one is the format that the modern version is based on.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#79
post #31

There needs to be a "use it or lose it" doctrine/law around technological IP. I get all the arguments around creating a market for the patent rights, but it just leads to these bottom feeders creating no value and increasing costs for the industry and consumers.

Patents are property and we need taxes/fee on it. $500/year per patent, will ensure use it (if you think it is valuable) or lose it. This is no different from domain names, most people pay $10 - $100/year just to keep a domain name. Some domain names are used, most aren't. These taxes can fund free education or healthcare or defense.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#80
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is hard I think, as there are patents that are not licenced because no one wants to - but I think every holder of a patent must licence it to any party interested. So just "sitting on patents" is not really possible to my knowledge. (but I am really not an expert here)

If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, then I'm not sure where you got that idea. Patent holders are not required to license their patents last time I checked. You are simply required to acquire a license prior to using patented technology. If they don't want to license it, you're SOL. (edit: if you were speculating on what should be , and not what is , then my bad... :)

"Patent holders are not required to license their patents last time I checked."

That is apparently right and I learned it wrong (but it does seems wrong to me).

edit: after reading the siblings answer, I apparently wrongly overgeneralized the way it works with patents in standards

Post reply on HN