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

61–70 of 147 posts

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#61

Post by dllthomas »

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…

Because that's not most people's understanding of theft - even other dictionaries seem to leave out the "make use of" side of it.

In the case of patents in particular, where the "thief" may have genuinely had the idea independently, it seems only a quirk of the law that they don't have the "authority or right" to make use of their idea just because someone else had it first.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#62

Post by ThePherocity »

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…

Well, I could get into a hundred reasons, but the primary one being that I personally don't recognize any concept which attempts to frame an idea as being property. It isn't property, I can't hold on to it, I can't touch it, and I can't steal it. You don't have any right to an idea over any other human. This is an abstract construct which attempts to create an artificial commodity where there isn't one. The consequence is it restricts humanity adversely as progress is controlled by those who have the currency to file thousands of patents per year. The free world is changing from a democracy to a corporatocracy.

Speaking of which, if you still don't understand, think for a second of democracy (an idea) being patented. People couldn't vote unless they paid licence fee, and if they were accused of voting without a licence then they would be deported without a trial on suspicion alone...

It's absurd, but it's more absurd that we've been letting it happen.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#63

Post by usea »

talmand wrote: post #30
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.

Exactly, my stance on software patents is that they do not necessarily cover the coder's method, it creates an entitlement to the result. Almost every software patent I've seen doesn't mention specific code, it just covers the result. Meaning no one can ever come up with a similar system without the threat of being sued for patent infringement. So, even if someone had a better way to make a similar system, they more…

This isn't actually true. The summary of a patent is usually very broad, but if you read the full text it is very specific as to the method being patented. Media outlets portray patents as covering an entire concept, but really they only cover a narrow implementation of a concept.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#64

Post by dllthomas »

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…

I intend to implement things I invented all the time (usually fairly trivial things, undeserving of patents). Many of them have probably been invented before, but because they are trivial, I am not infringing anything. If one of them happened to be slipped by the patent office, now I am infringing. Would you say that I intended to violate the patent? Is it incumbent on me to read every single patent granted and make sure I'm not doing anything that might use any of them? An argument could be made that I am negligent for not doing so - but negligence requires that the action expected be reasonable. Over 40k software patents are granted each year. If I spend 20 minutes on each (which is optimistic), it will take me a year and a half to read a year's worth if I do nothing but read 24x7. Obviously, expecting me to keep up on that and still do any development is absurdly unrealistic, and so it is not appropriate to call my failure to do so "negligent".

edited to fix numbers

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#65

Post by growingconcern »

ThePherocity wrote: post #62
chimi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, I could get into a hundred reasons, but the primary one being that I personally don't recognize any concept which attempts to frame an idea as being property. It isn't property, I can't hold on to it, I can't touch it, and I can't steal it. You don't have any right to an idea over any other human. This is an abstract construct which attempts to create an artificial commodity where there isn't one. The consequen…

Too bad it doesn't matter at all what you personally recognize. I happen to agree with you. And it does suck that reason has anything to do with this stuff. It's about money and control. This is just another example of a few people or corporate entities vacuuming up all the resources of the world. In this case they are vacuuming up raw ideas and the ability for individuals to profit from those ideas. They do this because they can. They have power and they use that power to change policy to allow them to do this. It's that simple. And it will only get "better" if it suits them. And I don't see it suiting them. Vive la revolution!

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#66

Post by travisp »

sp332 wrote: post #46
travisp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing this "purpose of patents", and while it's a common belief today, I don't know that it really fits in with what historically has been the purpose of patents. Much 19th century writing on patents and intellectual property saw them as fundamental property rights that protect the fruits of one's labor.

American patent law is somewhat different. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....

Not necessarily, here's an alternate view: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892062

>The conventional wisdom holds that American patents have always been grants of special monopoly privileges lacking any justification in natural rights philosophy, a belief based in oft-repeated citations to Thomas Jefferson's writings on patents. Using 'privilege' as a fulcrum in its analysis, this Article reveals that the history of early American patent law has been widely misunderstood and misused. In canvassing primary historical sources, including political and legal treatises, Founders' writings, congressional reports, and long-forgotten court decisions, it explains how patent rights were defined and enforced under the social contract doctrine and labor theory of property of natural rights philosophy. In the antebellum years, patents were civil rights securing important property rights -- what natural-rights-influenced politicians and jurists called 'privileges.'

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#67

Post by DougBTX »

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…

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

There are different punishments for patent infringement with and without intent, so by definition you can have patent infringement without intent.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#68

Post by sp332 »

travisp wrote: post #66
sp332 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American patent law is somewhat different. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....

Not necessarily, here's an alternate view: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892062 >The conventional wisdom holds that American patents have always been grants of special monopoly privileges lacking any justification in natural rights philosophy, a belief based in oft-repeated citations to Thomas Jefferson's writings on patents. Using 'privilege' as a fulcrum in its analysis, this Article reveals th…

So why does the constitution say they should be granted for a limited time, and for the progress of "science and the useful arts"? That doesn't sound like natural rights or a labor theory of property.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#69

Post by ben0x539 »

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 ?

No, by this reasoning, copyright infringement is not theft and should be discussed using precise and honest terminology.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#70

Post by emmett »

usea wrote: post #63
talmand wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, my stance on software patents is that they do not necessarily cover the coder's method, it creates an entitlement to the result. Almost every software patent I've seen doesn't mention specific code, it just covers the result. Meaning no one can ever come up with a similar system without the threat of being sued for patent infringement. So, even if someone had a better way to make a similar system, they more…

This isn't actually true. The summary of a patent is usually very broad, but if you read the full text it is very specific as to the method being patented. Media outlets portray patents as covering an entire concept, but really they only cover a narrow implementation of a concept.

Actually, this is often quite true for software patents. For a famous example, the Amazon one-click patent.

It shouldn't be true, but it is, because patent examiners have done a very poor job screening software patents historically.

Post reply on HN