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

Even experts get it wrong

notch.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 147 posts

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#51

Post by anamax »

DanWaterworth wrote: post #6

Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. This is the problem I've always had with patents, but I've never been able to articulate it before.

>> Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not.

Huh? Patent infringment consists of using some technique without the permission of the owner.

There's intent all over that.

Are you suggesting that folks are using techniques without the intent to use said techniques? Or that they aren't intending to use them without the permission of the owner? (Yes, you can argue that they didn't know that they needed permission but that doesn't change the fact that they intended to use them without permission.)

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#52

Post by terhechte »

bjornsing wrote: post #47
terhechte wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the worst that could happen then if I'd just ignore it and decide to never visit the US again nor sell anything to the US again?

That's a very good question - and as all good questions it's difficult to answer: it depends. :) There was recently a case where Håkan Lans argued he should not have to pay Acer after having lost a patent suit in Washington, because he is a Swedish citizen and the american verdict was according to him unjust. He first lost, but appealed and won in the appellate court (Hovrätten) [1]. The court argued that since there…

Thanks for the info. Will do some research then and just hope that I'll never be targeted by a patent troll.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#53

Post by eli »

jcromartie wrote: post #10
jere wrote: post #3

>And yet, the technology in question is a system that stops people from pirating their software and helps them make money. Well if you think it's so unfair, don't use the tech. Do something else. No one is forcing you to use the technology. Bullshit. Mojang isn't using Uniloc's tech. They're writing their own tech using a bloody obvious idea.

Not to mention Uniloc doesn't even have technology. They do not create or sell software.

Devil's Advocate mode

They create a market for patents which benefits everyone who invents something and patents it. If your startup has a useful patent then (even if you never use the patent) your company is made more valuable because trolls like this exist. Investors will consider how much that patent is worth on the market when valuing your company.

And how would you implement a system that prohibits patent troll behavior? Only the original inventor gets to own the patent? Only people using the technology are allowed to own the patent? Define "using." What if I invent something truly novel and would rather license it to established players instead of bringing it to market myself?

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#54

Post by drewwwwww »

Ryan_Shmotkin wrote: post #48
irahul wrote: post #4

The dude attacking Mojang isn't looking good. > Its amazing to see so many people loyal to this game maker. Good on him. Eh, didn't take the time to consider some of us are against the patent bullying, and not just fanboys. > 1. I am not the inventor of the patent in question. > 2. The personal attacks are a bit much don't you think? As long as people aren't doing anything illegal, I don't see why they should refrain…

By this reasoning, copyright infringement is not theft and should be tolerated. Who said we didn't think of using "scrolls" or "apple" as our company name independently ?

you mean 'trademark'.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#55

Post by eli »

anamax wrote: post #51
DanWaterworth wrote: post #6

Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. This is the problem I've always had with patents, but I've never been able to articulate it before.

>> Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. Huh? Patent infringment consists of using some technique without the permission of the owner. There's intent all over that. Are you suggesting that folks are using techniques without the intent to use said techniques? Or that they aren't intending to use them without the permission of the owner? (Yes, you can argue that they didn't know that they need…

Of course there are folks using patented technology without permission of the owner who nevertheless did not intend to infringe a patent -- that's exactly what's happening here with Mindcraft!

For the sake of argument, imagine I can prove that I came up with an idea for something on my own. I'm completely unaware that it has previously been discovered and patented. I did not even think it was an idea that could be patented. Did I intend to infringe that patent?

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#56

Post by chimi »

shasta wrote: post #45
irahul wrote: post #4

The dude attacking Mojang isn't looking good. > Its amazing to see so many people loyal to this game maker. Good on him. Eh, didn't take the time to consider some of us are against the patent bullying, and not just fanboys. > 1. I am not the inventor of the patent in question. > 2. The personal attacks are a bit much don't you think? As long as people aren't doing anything illegal, I don't see why they should refrain…

Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented Actually, that's exactly the purpose of patents. Patent legislation casts a wider net only because there's no effective way to assess the validity of someone's claim that "I invented this independently and was uninfluenced by your invention." You and notch are in the technically wrong column on this one. Compare to: "Life jackets are there to prevent…

I don't understand why people keep saying it isn't stealing. According to Merriam-Webster:

  Definition of STEAL
  transitive verb
  1a : to take or appropriate without right or leave 
  and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
and

  Definition of APPROPRIATE
  transitive verb
  3 : to take or make use of without authority or right
Why do opponents of IP rights keep saying it isn't stealing? There's nothing in the definition of stealing that says you have to physically remove something from the possession of the owner/creator of the thing being stolen. You just have to make use of it without the authority or right to do so.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#57

Post by dllthomas »

Ryan_Shmotkin wrote: post #48
irahul wrote: post #4

The dude attacking Mojang isn't looking good. > Its amazing to see so many people loyal to this game maker. Good on him. Eh, didn't take the time to consider some of us are against the patent bullying, and not just fanboys. > 1. I am not the inventor of the patent in question. > 2. The personal attacks are a bit much don't you think? As long as people aren't doing anything illegal, I don't see why they should refrain…

By this reasoning, copyright infringement is not theft and should be tolerated. Who said we didn't think of using "scrolls" or "apple" as our company name independently ?

Trademark isn't there to prevent theft of brilliant brand names; it's there to prevent confusion. That's an entirely different endeavor than either patent (protecting ideas) or copyright (protecting creative expression).

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#58

Post by eli »

dangoldin wrote: post #14

I keep on hearing about the Eastern Texas courts that are consistently plaintiff friendly. Just seems messed up that you could sue someone wherever it's most convenient for you.

If it makes you feel better, my understanding is that most of the big patent trolls now have "offices" in Eastern Texas to make the choice of venue more difficult to argue against.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#59

Post by shasta »

chimi wrote: post #56
shasta wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented Actually, that's exactly the purpose of patents. Patent legislation casts a wider net only because there's no effective way to assess the validity of someone's claim that "I invented this independently and was uninfluenced by your invention." You and notch are in the technically wrong column on this one. Compare to: "Life jackets are there to prevent…

I don't understand why people keep saying it isn't stealing. According to Merriam-Webster: Definition of STEAL transitive verb 1a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully and Definition of APPROPRIATE transitive verb 3 : to take or make use of without authority or right Why do opponents of IP rights keep saying it isn't stealing? There's nothing in the definiti…

The most general interpretation of that definition doesn't seem to match common usage of "steal". If I use your pen without permission, but without taking it, you're going to confuse a lot of people if you claim I stole it.

Secondly, there's a difference between what's being argued here and the common "copying isn't theft". Notch is pointing out that patent infringement doesn't even always involve copying. Sometimes it's just rediscovery.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#60

Post by duskwuff »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #49
DanWaterworth wrote: post #6

Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. This is the problem I've always had with patents, but I've never been able to articulate it before.

It's weirder than that. If the court determines that you knew about a patent and decided to violate it anyway, the penalty is considerably harsher. That means there is actually an incentive to remain as ignorant as possible about existing patents when developing new software.

Which ends up meaning that, rather than being a repository of useful inventions and techniques, the patent database ends up being a minefield -- as a software developer, for instance, you're best off avoiding looking at patents at all. (Since the ones that are old enough to have expired are now generally obvious in retrospect.)
Post reply on HN