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

The Silencing of Maya

niederfamily.blogspot.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#111

Post by femto »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #76
prodigal_erik wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finding a patent triples your vulnerability to infringement claims, and since the USPTO is rubber-stamping overbroad garbage rather than sanely enforcing the novelty and non-obviousness requirements, the answer to "is this patented?" is basically always yes. Edit: I'm not claiming that this particular patent is invalid (I can't safely read it, of course), only that invalid patents are so prevalent and dangerous that…

I agree, but there are times when you might want to check. So "Speak For Yourself" was founded by two Speech Pathologists [1] and they have been working with Autistic children for years. PRC's product seems to be the market leader (and of course its patented) and perhaps in part because it is patented it is very expensive. They had to have seen one, I expect they have even used them, and I would speculate they though…

I'd argue that any "invention" that falls into the "wouldn't it be neat if..." domain is obvious, and under existing law should be rejected outright as the basis for a patent.

In this particular instance, was you sister "skilled in the art" of developing treadmills or software? If not, and it's obvious her her, chances are it's blindingly obvious to someone who is skilled in those arts, and presumably works in those fields.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#112

Post by GFischer »

stephen_g wrote: post #90
SeanLuke wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens faster the more copying everyone does. This completely misunderstands the historical reason for patents. Patents do not stifle copying: they encourage copying by transforming a permanent monopoly of secrets into a temporary monopoly of open information. Patents we…

I think the main problem is that the length of protection is far too long for the IT industry - something more like three to five years would be more appropriate in my opinion given how fast it changes. And then there is also the problem that most software patents should fail the prior art or obviousness tests, but it costs so much to fight them that most companies settle...

Paraphrasing: "Justice in the U.S. costs too much". That doesn't sound very just, and is a larger problem than patents even.

Here in Uruguay, lawyers are much cheaper but justice is extremely slow (also not good).

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#113

Post by arjunnarayan »

SeanLuke wrote: post #74
ef4 wrote: post #52

The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens faster the more copying everyone does. America industrialized faster than Great Britain thanks to widespread copying -- and this saved countless human lives by lifting millions of people out of poverty faster than otherwise possible. Today China is industrializing f…

> The idea that we need patents to foster innovation is a self-serving lie. Most of human progress -- everything that got us to where we are now -- happens faster the more copying everyone does. This completely misunderstands the historical reason for patents. Patents do not stifle copying: they encourage copying by transforming a permanent monopoly of secrets into a temporary monopoly of open information. Patents we…

This is correct and I agree with all your statements except for the last: China's copying is not _illegal_. China is not subject to US law. US Patents prevent copying _in the US_, but this restriction doesn't apply within China. You could argue that the uninhibited copying in China is depriving Americans of rightful patent license revenue, but that's still a matter of morality and not legality.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#114

Post by arjunnarayan »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #56

I think presenting issues in this way is manipulative. Before I explain, I want to be clear that I truly do feel for this mother and her situation. I also think the patent system is irredeemably fucked to out it nicely. But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. Tugging on people's heart strings to push forward your philosophy/belie…

This is a cause we, as a group (i.e. majority of the hacker news readership) really support --- weakening the clusterfuck of a patent system we have today. So maybe you are uncomfortable watching these dark arts deployed, and maybe you have a point, but I, for one, welcome our Karl Rovian allies.

At this point, it may be all that's left that can move the political process forward.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#115

Post by [deleted] »

sirclueless wrote: post #105
kika wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know exactly how patents work for drugs, but I don't believe that you can patent an already existing (generic) drug, but in pills colored red and blue, for example. And another patent for yellow pills. And another and another. Alas, in the software industry this is very much possible (and being done every day).

That's definitely false. You might be able to patent a new delivery mechanism or something, turn a generic into a gel capsule and patent that maybe, but the important thing is that once the generic drug passes out from under its patents anyone can create it. To use an analogy with razors: I might not be able to make a razor with 4 blades and a cushioning lotion pad above and below because Gillette will sue me, but I…

[deleted]

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#116

Post by jeffool »

sirclueless wrote: post #105
kika wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know exactly how patents work for drugs, but I don't believe that you can patent an already existing (generic) drug, but in pills colored red and blue, for example. And another patent for yellow pills. And another and another. Alas, in the software industry this is very much possible (and being done every day).

That's definitely false. You might be able to patent a new delivery mechanism or something, turn a generic into a gel capsule and patent that maybe, but the important thing is that once the generic drug passes out from under its patents anyone can create it. To use an analogy with razors: I might not be able to make a razor with 4 blades and a cushioning lotion pad above and below because Gillette will sue me, but I…

And if you own a drug patent, you can continually extend the patent via a process called "evergreening". Pharmaceutical companies make minimal changes and get patent extensions. These changes can include the color or flavor of medicine. It's illegal in many other nations, but here in the US... And we wonder why we pay so much for medicine.

Patents as they work today seem to curtail progress at every turn.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#117

Post by jarek »

enneff wrote: post #30
opminion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, where's Stallman when you need him.

Why would he care? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/36460

Can you elaborate on why you feel your link suggest that he would not care about a person being potentially denied use of software useful to them?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#119

Post by gbhn »

phene wrote: post #87
olefoo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely the case that Congress should take action on non-practicing entities being able to put up a tollbooth on others efforts; there is no way that qualifies as promoting the useful arts and sciences. I'm of the opinion that a patent that has not been reduced to practice should be regarded as ineligible for any enforcement action. If you can't make it work, you should not be able to tax the people who did m…

That is definitely a good idea, but what about the patents that are so blatantly vague or obvious, that many people are unknowingly violating them. It seems it's easier to prove non-infringement rather than prior art with most software patents.

The patent grant puts the burden of proof on the alleged infringer, on the theory that a granted patent has been pre-vetted for all the right criteria. But when I look at patent litigation, it seems (and perhaps this is a selection bias problem) that in most cases, about 90% of the patent claims get immediately thrown out. Doesn't it seem that the presumption that the patent grant is a strong enough process to force the burden of proof onto the infringer is just a social mistake? If the burden of proof shifted to the patent holder, it would totally change patent litigation, while maintaining all the abilities we applaud about the patent system -- the ability of a patent holder to sue an infringer who stole their idea, and get compensated.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#120

Post by regularfry »

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #62

There seem to be three parts: 1) Are PRC and Apple morally wrong for enforcing and not fighting patent claims? 2) Should patents work in a way that incentivizes PRC and Apple to behave this way? 3) Irrespective of (1) or (2) what can be done? (1) The answer to this is somewhat ambiguous for any company with investors. Sure, I want my companies to behave in morally responsible ways. On the other hand, there are hundre…

The fourth part is where Apple are acting in place of the judiciary. Taking the article at its word, Apple have taken and enforced a "guilty until proven innocent" stance with respect to their own suppliers and customers. Ignoring for a moment how bizarrely arrogant that is, there's a very good reason we rely on independent judges and juries to get these questions right.
Post reply on HN