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

Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 426 posts

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#251

Post by Exoristos »

hsuduebc2 wrote: post #172
spaceguillotine wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You got a point. Yesterday this post which was trending on hacker news mentioned that cloudflare was defending not revealing identity of people at court that were stalking and literally destroying someones live with swatting. I wouldn't say they are soulles corporation like google. Their attitude is somehow problematic yet admirable. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/swat...

Since when were internet companies part of law enforcement?

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#252

Post by jstarfish »

eitland wrote: post #239
IanCal wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've wondered about - you specify a value and pay a tax accordingly. Anyone is then able to buy it from you for that price. Have some short term part for free, then fees scale over time.

A slightly different version was in use in Denmark: a ship declared the value of their cargo for toll purposes. They decided the price, but the catch was the customs could buy the cargo at that price.

That is fiendishly clever.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#253

Post by KittenInABox »

beefield wrote: post #245
kstrauser wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I offer as an alternative: IP is property, and it's taxed at the value you declare that it's worth. However, if you swear to the IRS that it's worth $500/yr, then you can't claim in court that a violation of it is costing you $10,000,000/yr in losses. That would be perjury. Your patent is worth $10,000,000? Awesome! I bet your local school district will love to hear how much you'll be paying in taxes on it.

I offer one more alternative. Double the tax every year, and once the ip holder decides not to pay the tax, IP is released to public domain. No compnay has money to keep IP indefinitely in such a scheme.

I would suggest only for corporations above a certain size. I would appreciate if some old music composer somewhere gets to continue being old and stuff without worrying about this sort of thing.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#254

Post by thomastjeffery »

thfuran wrote: post #224
thomastjeffery wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about the state? All of these things are already paid for. Either that continues to happen, or invention just stops happening altogether. Obviously there is profit to be made from new ideas, so there should be plenty of incentive to invest in inventors. Inventors could also collaborate and unionize. Many already do.

>Who said anything about the state? By implication, you: >here is my proposal to replace intellectual property Property rights, intellectual or otherwise, are granted and enforced by the state. So too, it would seem, might be their replacements. But it sounds like you're actually proposing simply eliminating all current IP law rather than replacing it with anything.

My proposal, taken literally is to eliminate all IP law, and to not replace it with anything.

My proposal, taken in context is to meet the same needs that IP intended to meet, but without any state involvement.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#255

Post by AlbertCory »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #213
AlbertCory wrote: post #107

this is an excellent summary of how the system works. Every month HN has a thread like this, and every month the usual suspects rant about how patents are fucked up, and there needs to be this, that, or the other. And nothing changes. Ask your local candidates for Congress if they'll support removing patentability for software. That's how you solve this problem.

> Ask your local candidates for Congress if they'll support removing patentability for software. That's how you solve this problem. That's not how any of this works. You don't think some people have already "asked their local candidates for Congress" about this? Surely you have personally done that? If you have, then how come the problem still exists? Clearly your action of "asking your local candidate for Congress"…

> You don't think some people have already "asked their local candidates for Congress" about this?

Actually, no, I don't think they have. Judging by the lack of ANY bills in Congress, even bills that get shitcanned by the leadership -- no, no one has.

I was going to quote the rest of your post, but it's all ignorant.

I know how the lobbying in Congress goes; I personally helped hire one of Google's DC political representatives. Do you know anything?

The way it goes is, the big pharma companies block any patent reforms. The way to get them out of the picture is to remove software from the patent system.

As for "Clearly your action of "asking your local candidate for Congress" did not solve the problem" you have some warped idea of how representative politics works. You don't just talk to someone and your wishes get magically carried out. Rather it's a sustained struggle where the enemy gets to have their say, too.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#256

Post by polishTar »

KittenInABox wrote: post #253
beefield wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I offer one more alternative. Double the tax every year, and once the ip holder decides not to pay the tax, IP is released to public domain. No compnay has money to keep IP indefinitely in such a scheme.

I would suggest only for corporations above a certain size. I would appreciate if some old music composer somewhere gets to continue being old and stuff without worrying about this sort of thing.

A lot of patent trolls are very small companies though

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#257

Post by Exoristos »

8note wrote: post #210
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably every pharmaceutical patent. In software? Um... . (But you asked "where patents" and not "where software patents", so...)

Pharmaceutical parents seems like an odd choice. Aren't most of those inventions driven by government funding at universities?

Yes, but they probably wouldn't be without patents to ensure income for the government's partners.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#258

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

jeltz wrote: post #241
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith. OK fine want an ongoing patient fee ? Make it $9.99 per year just like a registrar, who gives you convenient ways to renew and pay fees from a working, modern site, and allow migration , with a few clicks. Is that going to prevent trolls ? Unequivocally, no. Parent was arguing for some ridiculous, unnecessary , tax. Then cited registrars as an example. My point, 1 gives a…

I do not think you know the domain business, which I happen to work in (I own a small registrar and know people at registries). The reason domain costs money is to make it more expensive to hoard, not to pay for any service. There is a service but it just costs a tiny fraction of the registry fee the rest they often use for funding various non-profit initiatives to improve the internet not related at all the providin…

Makes complete sense. Domain hoarding is not cool and makes sense to mitigate using fees as you describe.

Now, Patents already require fees and also substantial paperwork. In effect that is the "hoarding" control.

I stand corrected that the point of ICANN and registrars to charge something is to introduce a barrier to entry. Yet, I'd argue you are still providing a service if the fees go towards nonprofit activity to improve interoperability.

Yet, introducing a huge fee to patents wouldn't really be conductive to anything on the patent side, which is at the core my issue: I'm not making a judgement about the margin on fees, i'm questioning whether there's a semblance of service. From my vantage point, registrars have made massive improvements in accessibility and ease of use, and as you said, they have lowered the barriers to entry. | I can't say the same at all for patents.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#259

Post by balderdash »

thelastgallon wrote: post #79
duped wrote: 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.

I generally think the principal of taxing property is fundamentally flawed (especially as it relates to property that has a market value that can be quite volatile or hard to value and even more so if the property generates no current income).

My rationale is that it means that only people that are rich can own property as they can afford the taxes, and especially if the property has increased in value over time and has no or small associated cash flows. By all means tax gains on realization (though I’d argue there should be a CPI adjustment to the basis but that’s another conversation)

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#260

Post by DylanDmitri »

KittenInABox wrote: post #253
beefield wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I offer one more alternative. Double the tax every year, and once the ip holder decides not to pay the tax, IP is released to public domain. No compnay has money to keep IP indefinitely in such a scheme.

I would suggest only for corporations above a certain size. I would appreciate if some old music composer somewhere gets to continue being old and stuff without worrying about this sort of thing.

Music compositions get covered by copyright. Patents are another section of law.
Post reply on HN