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

391–400 of 426 posts

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#391

Post by paledot »

freejazz wrote: post #354
paledot wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow the winning ticket in popular discourse is to be a patent troll: at best, "sell my idea" to some big company (troll); at worst convince a court to give you a pile of money because someone "stole" your idea (in advance). It is a rare person who dreams of coming up with a good idea and then working hard for years to make it a reality.

How many patent trolls do you know? As compared to people that you know who would/could be an inventor on a patent? I'm a patent litigator and it's still the latter for me. This narrative is a bit histrionic.

As a software developer, I'm not exactly representative, nor are you. The point was about ambition/popular perception, not the reality. If your "maybe someday" dream prominently features being issued a patent, it's not because you'll use the patent responsibily to defend the idea that you're actively developing and marketing. If your "maybe someday" plan involves developing and marketing an idea, patents might be a factor somewhere way down the list of how to get there, but that's a very different ambition.

(That's not to say that the reality isn't also broken, just that popular perception is even more broken.)

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#392

Post by freejazz »

paledot wrote: post #391
freejazz wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many patent trolls do you know? As compared to people that you know who would/could be an inventor on a patent? I'm a patent litigator and it's still the latter for me. This narrative is a bit histrionic.

As a software developer, I'm not exactly representative, nor are you. The point was about ambition/popular perception, not the reality. If your "maybe someday" dream prominently features being issued a patent, it's not because you'll use the patent responsibily to defend the idea that you're actively developing and marketing. If your "maybe someday" plan involves developing and marketing an idea, patents might be a f…

> The point was about ambition/popular perception, not the reality.

What a silly point then. Who cares what people's perceptions are when they are not based in reality.

> If your "maybe someday" dream prominently features being issued a patent, it's not because you'll use the patent responsibily to defend the idea that you're actively developing and marketing.

I see, so nobody can get a patent because nobody will use a patent "responsibly".

There's no point in furthering this conversation.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#393

Post by shagie »

raverbashing wrote: post #368
shagie wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Board game rules fall under patents. It has an example of the garage process, patent, infringement, and win. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/11/26/271633... > A company headed by a Colorado professor who invented a strategy board game has won a $1.6 million patent infringement verdict. > ... > Innovention prevailed in a patent infringement against MGA, Wal-Mart Stores and Toys R Us. A federal court in…

But Board Games are not software and there are other aspects of a game that can be IP protected (trademarks, etc)

The example was not given to argue about the types of patents granted, but rather that the patent system does have the occasional win by the little guy against large companies...

... and that this is so infrequent that it is news.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#394

Post by chefandy »

shiroiushi wrote: post #375
chefandy wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reckon simple solutions are often simple because they ignore important complexities. I'd love to abolish patents, but I don't see how our society could before figuring out stuff like how else to support the people that do important knowledge work, and incentivizing creating new things when it's a hell of a lot more profitable to just wait until someone else does it first. The software industry is already compatible…

Have you actually read any patents? Just knowing the bare basics of how something works isn't enough to make a successful business out of it. Even with mechanical manufactured stuff, a few diagrams isn't going to tell you all the stuff you really need to know to properly manufacture it, and patents have famously left out lots of important trade secrets, not to mention stuff that people just didn't bother writing down…

Ok: I'll chalk this set of nitpicks and amorphous opposition up to "nuh-uh".

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#395

Post by AlbertCory »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #380
AlbertCory wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 repre…

You seemed to have entirely missed my point so I'll just reiterate it with different words: simple actions that one person can choose to do - such as sending letters, calling representatives, or signing online petitions - have no effect. None whatsoever. The world is exactly the same place if I take action, compared to if I take no action. You claim that an ordinary person, such as myself, could affect real change by…

I didn't miss your point at all. It's just wrong. The comment was addressed to several hundred thousand people, not just to you. But how's this:

You just keep sitting there and playing games on your console, because you wouldn't be a good spokesperson.

Never Doubt That a Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens Can Change the World; Indeed, It’s the Only Thing That Ever Has

(not really Margaret Mead, according to https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/12/change-world/)

I'm sorry you feel so powerless. If you look deeper at how things actually happen, you might get more hopeful. Get well soon.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#396

Post by [deleted] »

cloogshicer wrote: post #228

Serious question: What if you run a small blog with a newsletter and some troll comes along and sues you - how do you defend yourself? Even if the troll's claims are completely ridiculous, if you don't have a few $100k lying around for legal fees, you might not even have the option of going to trial. What do you do in such a case?

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#397

Post by anonymouskimmer »

freejazz wrote: post #384
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would be the purpose of the clause if authors/inventors couldn't sell their work? Not that they can't sell their work, but that they can transfer their exclusive rights in such a manner that they themselves can no longer exercise those rights. And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to…

>And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to someone by allowing them to (both post-hoc and especially pre-hoc) permanently transfer those rights. I don't follow that those words are the "laws" you are talking about. The security of the right is the intellectual property. The patent secures the…

You're missing that I'm trying to figure out how this actually works. Not saying how it should work. I'm not a sovereign citizen here, merely a confused citizen.

> Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"?

I'm a regular person who is trying to interpret the law. I'm failing. This is probably because I'm getting too lost in thought. But the law should be clear enough that regular people can understand it without citation or legal knowledge. It should not be a specialized field except that specialists have broad facility in application. It's a definite improvement that modern laws abandoned parsimony for as precise as possible definition of terms.

That's all.

And the plain meaning of "secure" at the time was: "The sense of "get possession of, make oneself master of" is from 1743." https://www.etymonline.com/word/secure With "no one can serve two masters" a biblical phrase that Jefferson would have been well familiar with.

> This is all besides that if an owner can license, then transferring the IP itself is trivial, as one can grant a license that covers all aspects of the exclusive rights.

Exactly. I did eventually figure this out. I still think that it's a sophistic end-run around the plain text of the clause, unless said license includes a clawback provision that the author/inventor can unilaterally initiate.

But I also believe that the founders knew about the Sophists, Shakespear's Merchant of Venice, and the like, as well as some of the arguments at the time over what to include in the Constitution. And that if they wrote ambiguity into Constitutional provisions, they likely did so on purpose. Definitional changes accounted for. Which puts me at odds with most jurisprudence.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#398

Post by freejazz »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #397
freejazz wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And laws which allow this are obviously, by definition of the words at the time, not "securing" those rights to the authors and inventors. You can't secure something to someone by allowing them to (both post-hoc and especially pre-hoc) permanently transfer those rights. I don't follow that those words are the "laws" you are talking about. The security of the right is the intellectual property. The patent secures the…

You're missing that I'm trying to figure out how this actually works. Not saying how it should work. I'm not a sovereign citizen here, merely a confused citizen. > Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"? I'm a regular person who is trying to interpret the law. I'm failing. This is probably because I'm getting too lost in thought. But the law should be clear enough that regular people can…

This conversation is becoming absurd. I do not understand how you read that definition of secure to mean that the master cannot sell their own shop. I’ve repeatedly asked you for your support on what is a very esoteric reading of the word secure, as opposed to the plain reading I keep providing to you. It’s one thing for you to speculate, but to insist that your forced reading is the plain one is a bit ridiculous IMO. I’m well aware that the law needs to be written clearly for plain understanding, it is. You are the one advancing a meaning that says by giving something to someone, they can’t also then sell it? That doesn’t mesh with the founder’s understandings of property rights at all or the definitions themselves.

It’s a bit of a joke, and I guess you don’t realize it. But the point about academic references is that you are making an academic argument. You’d think that if your point was true, that it is SO OBVIOUSLY beyond the plain meaning of the word, SOMEONE else would have said something in the ensuing 200 years. Yet here we are, you telling me you know what the founders meant, despite all the evidence and common sense running against you. Okay buddy - good luck with that.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#399

Post by anonymouskimmer »

freejazz wrote: post #398
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing that I'm trying to figure out how this actually works. Not saying how it should work. I'm not a sovereign citizen here, merely a confused citizen. > Can you point to anything to support that understanding of "secure"? I'm a regular person who is trying to interpret the law. I'm failing. This is probably because I'm getting too lost in thought. But the law should be clear enough that regular people can…

This conversation is becoming absurd. I do not understand how you read that definition of secure to mean that the master cannot sell their own shop. I’ve repeatedly asked you for your support on what is a very esoteric reading of the word secure, as opposed to the plain reading I keep providing to you. It’s one thing for you to speculate, but to insist that your forced reading is the plain one is a bit ridiculous IMO…

It's not just "secure". It is "exclusive". "Exclusive" has always meant "exclusive".

The Constitution only allows congress to "exclusively secure" IP rights to the originators of the material. It does not allow congress to "exclusively secure" rights to anyone else. The only way I can make this work is through an originator licensing a work to a single other entity, and in said license guaranteeing that other entity that the originator will not otherwise use any rights they own except to the extent of the exclusive license to the other entity.

This works. I still think it only really works if the originator has the unilateral power to break the agreement. But I can understand someone legitimately making a counter-argument.

In an originalist sense, the founders were very much against royal grants of monopoly, so limited the power of the government to grant monopolies solely to the originators of ideas.

I'm no longer confused, so yes we can drop this line of discussion. I hope you understand that I wasn't talking about just one word, but the word in the context of the rest of the clause.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#400

Post by creeble »

patmcc wrote: post #287
creeble wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that one can begin to judge how duplicitous their claims in defence of another's 'invalid' patent my be.

If Cloudflare starts trying to sue or shake down folks with their patents, this will be a very valid point. Until then it's a little silly; everybody holds patents for (at least) defensive reasons.

But that’s generally where the trolls get their patents from - what were once large companies (like, in Cloudflare’s recent case, Caspian Networks).

My point (if any) is that while we pat Cloudflare on the back for “taking down a troll”, they are complicit (as are many companies these days) in assisting the creation of future trolls who will mine their own, more general, perhaps “obvious to someone familiar with the art”, patents like CNAME flattening.

Post reply on HN