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

401–410 of 426 posts

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#401

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…

> 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

The only people who would advance an argument against transfer of IP rights are those who don't have standing to make such an argument.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#402

Post by creeble »

djmips wrote: post #383
rainsford wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recognize my position is far from airtight, but I'm honestly way, way less bothered by the fact that companies like Cloudflare have a large patent portfolio simply because they actually build useful stuff related to their patents. There is a robust debate to be had on the validity of obvious or generic software patents that only questionably constitute legitimate "invention", but that's almost entirely separate fro…

The real danger is if Cloudflare is threatened and on life support - does their culture maintain or what if it changes hands or fails completely and it's patent portfolio is acquired by litigious trolls.

As happened to Caspian Networks in the current case.

There is no resolution to the troll problem if you just keep playing the same game. So I’m not sure why we congratulate companies for “taking down trolls” when their own patent portfolio will (just as likely as not) add to the troll problem of the future.

Would Project Jengo pay me if I could show prior art for CNAAME flattening? No, because it’s their patent.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#403

Post by anonymouskimmer »

kalleboo wrote: post #388
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fifty years ago they paid for Xerox's PARC where WYSIWYG and GUI interfaces were first developed targeting a mass audience.

By that logic we need to bring back a telephone monopoly since Bell Labs brought us so much innovation paid for by rip-off calling fees.

By that logic if anything bad has ever resulted in anything good we have to keep doing the bad thing in magical hopes that it will keep causing good to happen.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#404

Post by Log_out_ »

yashap wrote: post #175

Nice to see Cloudflare fighting the good fight, but patent trolls aren’t the only issue with software patents. A major issue that people talk about way less is well funded/large companies getting bullshit patents, and using them to sue their small startup competitors into the ground. It doesn’t even matter if they win - when a company with billions in the bank sues a company with millions in the bank, the small compa…

Chat gpt destroy this patent with prior art

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#405

Post by freejazz »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #399
freejazz wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't work and the only historical evidence you can point to is the merchant of venice, not the actual theories of property rights the drafters had in mind. This is an asinine argument. Exclusive here doesn't mean the owner can't sell, it means he's the only person who can decide to sell. That's why it's their exclusive right.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#406

Post by freejazz »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #401
freejazz wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 The only people who would advance an argument against transfer of IP rights are those who don't have standing to make such an argument.

I ask you about any actual writing on this topic to demonstrate that you are making this up wholesale on your own. You haven't rebutted that. You just made my point for me with this ridiculous argument that in the entire history of the constitution of the united states, and all the years of interpreting it since then, everyone has been so invested in being pro-patent, that nobody besides you ever realized that the founders OBVIOUSLY meant that IP owners can't transfer their rights

(what could they do with it then? you realize not all inventors are interested in running businesses? licensing was not a new concept to the founders. obviously you have no rebuttal to this, but I just want to hit the point home because I find your argument so obnoxious in the profundity you think it belies)

including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#407

Post by anonymouskimmer »

freejazz wrote: post #405
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't work and the only historical evidence you can point to is the merchant of venice, not the actual theories of property rights the drafters had in mind. This is an asinine argument. Exclusive here doesn't mean the owner can't sell, it means he's the only person who can decide to sell. That's why it's their exclusive right.

It's asinine to expect citizens in a democratic republic to have to accept the word of experts as to the rights that they enjoy.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#408

Post by anonymouskimmer »

freejazz wrote: post #406
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 The only people who would advance an argument against transfer of IP rights are those who don't have standing to make such an argument.

I ask you about any actual writing on this topic to demonstrate that you are making this up wholesale on your own. You haven't rebutted that. You just made my point for me with this ridiculous argument that in the entire history of the constitution of the united states, and all the years of interpreting it since then, everyone has been so invested in being pro-patent, that nobody besides you ever realized that the fo…

YOU ARE TOO USED TO ARGUING WITH OTHER LAWYERS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO CONVERSE AND LEAD PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH.

In my "arguments" as you call them I am not citing jack shit other than the constitution, time-specific definitions, and some recollections.

AGAIN I AM A CITIZEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW BY READING THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE LAW.

> including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that their entire concept of property rights was somehow distinct when it comes to patents.

There were a lot of distinctions written into the constitution that separated it from preexisting common law and royal prerogative. Titles of nobility, etcetera. So when trying to understand the basis of the law I necessarily revert to the knowledge that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and thus it's text is definitive as to jurisdiction and powers.

AGAIN, I SAID THAT I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY CAN EXCLUSIVELY LICENSE THEIR RIGHTS. BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINATOR. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS. *I NOW UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS!!!!* I still think there are holes in it, or of my understanding of it, but these aren't killer holes.

FOR GOD DAMN SAKE. HOW IS IT OBNOXIOUS TO WANT A COMMON CITIZEN TO UNDERSTAND THE VERY LAWS HE LIVES UNDER? AND THEN CALL HIM ASININE AND OBNOXIOUS FOR TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT VIA DIALOGUE?

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#409

Post by freejazz »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #408
freejazz wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask you about any actual writing on this topic to demonstrate that you are making this up wholesale on your own. You haven't rebutted that. You just made my point for me with this ridiculous argument that in the entire history of the constitution of the united states, and all the years of interpreting it since then, everyone has been so invested in being pro-patent, that nobody besides you ever realized that the fo…

YOU ARE TOO USED TO ARGUING WITH OTHER LAWYERS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO CONVERSE AND LEAD PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH. In my "arguments" as you call them I am not citing jack shit other than the constitution, time-specific definitions, and some recollections. AGAIN I AM A CITIZEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW BY READING THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE LAW. > including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that…

>YOU ARE TOO USED TO ARGUING WITH OTHER LAWYERS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO CONVERSE AND LEAD PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH.

No, you're talking out of your ass, and you wont listen to reason.

>AGAIN, I SAID THAT I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY CAN EXCLUSIVELY LICENSE THEIR RIGHTS. BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT THE ORIGINATOR. SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS. I NOW UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS!!!! I still think there are holes in it, or of my understanding of it, but these aren't killer holes.

Not sure why you think repeating yourself in caps-lock makes a difference. Congress can't grant a patent or a copyright to anyone else but the inventor or the author. The author and the inventor are free to do what they want with that property right. Nothing you said about the word exclusive or anything else changes. This is entirely common sense as I've pointed out to you several times. I also pointed out that your reading of the text is baseless, defies common sense, and the plain definition of any of the words. You, of course, insisted otherwise and that you were obviously correct despite a complete dearth of any kind of support. There's no reason for you to be electronically yelling at me, you got yourself here on your own. You were pompous and rude, why should I be courteous to you at all?

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#410

Post by slater »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #408
freejazz wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask you about any actual writing on this topic to demonstrate that you are making this up wholesale on your own. You haven't rebutted that. You just made my point for me with this ridiculous argument that in the entire history of the constitution of the united states, and all the years of interpreting it since then, everyone has been so invested in being pro-patent, that nobody besides you ever realized that the fo…

YOU ARE TOO USED TO ARGUING WITH OTHER LAWYERS THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO CONVERSE AND LEAD PEOPLE TO THE TRUTH. In my "arguments" as you call them I am not citing jack shit other than the constitution, time-specific definitions, and some recollections. AGAIN I AM A CITIZEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW BY READING THE PLAIN TEXT OF THE LAW. > including the founders themselves, who you cannot cite to say meant that…

> for god damn sake. how is it obnoxious to want a common citizen to understand the very laws he lives under?

that usually seems to lead to blathering "sovereign citizen" nonsense

Post reply on HN