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

Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

rackspace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#111

Post by forgottenpaswrd »

Question to the Rackspace guys:

Why don't you make a kickstarter project to pay for the IPR?

As you said, other companies are interested in sharing the cost, as trolls go after them too. Why not sharing the cost too?.

Companies that are affected by trolls are acting like independent entities, witch makes them extremely vulnerable to big companies and capitalized trolls.

You need to unite!

Small and medium business are most of America's or European business, but if you act alone and divided you will be easily defeated(divide and conquer)

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#112

Post by thisisrobv »

knappe wrote: post #81
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowhere in the article (unless my reading skills have gone to pot...which is possible) did Rackspace propose destroying the patent system. They are talking about invalidating a particular patent, thereby de-clawing a particular troll. It's also interesting that, in my nearly 20 years in the industry, I've never met anybody who actively bragged about their patents. I think there might be a little agism coming through…

I have, but they're also 25. They're slightly sheepish about the number of patents that they hold, but only to a degree. It is still a point of pride as well. I've also worked for a large telecom that had each and every patent granted at each office up on the wall so that you could see it as you walked in.

It's a complicated issue, but glad that a company like Rackspace is taking a strong stance against patent trolls. It's not necessarily the patents that are the problem, but the companies leeching off of and taking advantage of the system.

There's nothing wrong with invention and although it would be a great world if we were all altruistic and willing to share these ideas with one another for free, it's not that wrong to believe that inventors should be rewarded for their efforts. Unfortunately the current system is broken, and needs fixing.

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#113

Post by zmmmmm »

amikula wrote: post #20

To me, this is a strong sign that the patent holder should at least run a substantial risk of getting charged for legal costs if they lose. It might require a bit more due diligence on the part of the patent holder in genuinely enforceable patents, but it would all but eliminate the motivation of patent trolls when they know their patent is dubious. I applaud Rackspace for this act of charity to the community, but it…

At some point it should be more than legal costs. Threatening someone with a patent that is manifestly not applicable should be considered a form of fraud in extreme cases, just like it is if I send you a false invoice in the mail demanding payment. We need to raise the risk factor enough that patent trolls can't simply write off their losses against all their successes. They'll keep going as long as the benefits outweigh the risk.

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#114

Post by zmmmmm »

geoka9 wrote: post #85
coolj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not 8x, but Rackspace is lobbying[1] for a bill that would allow courts to make patent trolls pay for all of the cost incurred by the defending party in a failed suit[2]. [1] http://www.rackspace.com/blog/patent-trolls-make-them-pay/ (last paragraph) [2] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.845%3A

But trolls are usually shell companies, aren't they? What's to stop them from declaring bankruptcy and wash their hands of the whole thing? Since the troll's targets would probably have to pay their lawyers upfront, I don't see how this bill would make any difference.

That's why I would advocate patent trolling in - extreme cases, where the trolling company knows the patent is invalid or not applicable - should be considered a form of fraud. Then the directors should be liable for criminal sanctions.

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#115

Post by larrys »

zabramow wrote: post #102
larrys wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"thereby earning genuine trust with current and prospective customers" I don't disagree with that in general but I will raise the issue that you would need to know the percentage of current and future customers that really care about things like this to know the effect that it will have on their business in dollars. Consumers and business are fickle. Good will has a value but people will drop you in a dime if the nex…

Funny that you mention domains, because, while there might be some public good in patents, it's much harder to say about domain name squatters. Why have we not put adequate regs in place to eliminate squatters? I liked a particular domain name for a new startup. I approached the domain name owner -- a FB engineer no less -- who had bought the domain, and I offered him a price that would have yielded him 7500 in profi…

So let me see if I understand your point. You are saying "they aren't using it so therefore we should be able to use it" and are somehow comparing that to what patent trolls do?

Further you are saying that someone who holds a domain name (or any property) should have to satisfy a requirement of "use" of that property or domain name? And if not they should sell it to you for a price that you find acceptable or maybe just give it to you?

If that is the case then please tell me who will be in charge of determining what "use" of a domain name is?

What do you define as a squatter? Because it's not someone who registers a domain name and just holds it although that is the popular culture interpretation of the word.

By the way there is no such thing as "arbitration" with domain names. There is the filing of a UDRP (which costs much much less and you can file on your own) but to do that you would have to have some basis. I can assure you that if you have just formed a startup you don't meet the requirements for filing a UDRP. It isn't meant to protect people who "just want a particular domain and the seller isn't being reasonable" it's meant to protect those with true intellectual property interests (from what I'm reading in your comment you don't meet this in any way).

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#116

Post by AnthonyMouse »

larrys wrote: post #115
zabramow wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that you mention domains, because, while there might be some public good in patents, it's much harder to say about domain name squatters. Why have we not put adequate regs in place to eliminate squatters? I liked a particular domain name for a new startup. I approached the domain name owner -- a FB engineer no less -- who had bought the domain, and I offered him a price that would have yielded him 7500 in profi…

So let me see if I understand your point. You are saying "they aren't using it so therefore we should be able to use it" and are somehow comparing that to what patent trolls do? Further you are saying that someone who holds a domain name (or any property) should have to satisfy a requirement of "use" of that property or domain name? And if not they should sell it to you for a price that you find acceptable or maybe j…

The mistake is in thinking that domain names should be property. They're not property, they're address space. Imagine if trademarks worked this way -- right now to get a trademark you have to actually use it (or certify that you intend to use it), you can't just squat on a thousand different names and hope somebody is eventually willing to pay you for one of them.

And the solution should be the same. You can't sell a trademark. What you can do is sell the goodwill it has accrued and transfer the mark along with it. That sounds like the same thing, right? But if you haven't used it there is no goodwill -- in fact, if you stop using a trademark then you eventually lose the rights to it. It shuts down the squatters but not anyone else, which is why we don't have trademark squatters the same as we do domain name squatters.

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#117

Post by timedoctor »

When I read the title I thought they were talking about abolishing patents altogether, which I think is not such a bad idea. At least for software patents I definitely think they should be eliminated.

Eliminating this one patent is pretty useless. Admirable in a certain sense, but there are thousands of other ridiculous patents. You can't fix the entire system one patent at a time.

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#118

Post by timedoctor »

zabramow wrote: post #102
larrys wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"thereby earning genuine trust with current and prospective customers" I don't disagree with that in general but I will raise the issue that you would need to know the percentage of current and future customers that really care about things like this to know the effect that it will have on their business in dollars. Consumers and business are fickle. Good will has a value but people will drop you in a dime if the nex…

Funny that you mention domains, because, while there might be some public good in patents, it's much harder to say about domain name squatters. Why have we not put adequate regs in place to eliminate squatters? I liked a particular domain name for a new startup. I approached the domain name owner -- a FB engineer no less -- who had bought the domain, and I offered him a price that would have yielded him 7500 in profi…

What's the difference between squatting and building your app? So you're doing to take my domain whilst I'm in startup phase?

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#119

Post by DaniFong »

ubernostrum wrote: post #108
DaniFong wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God damn; PATO is exactly my proposal. I shall sue him, having come up with it 15 years after his publication... ;-)

Except it doesn't work. Here's what really happens: PatentHoldingShellCompany60852, Inc. files a lawsuit. They have no products and no services and so cannot be countersued for any conceivable infringement. Even if you do manage to sue them successfully, the company's only asset is the patent. It declares bankruptcy, nobody involved in setting it up gets hurt, and tomorrow PatentHoldingShellCompany60853, Inc. is fili…

But you can invalidate the patent with an IPR suit. That would be an effective deterrent against patent trolls.

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#120

Post by jacques_chester »

breck wrote: post #37

I like this approach. I would be mathematically surprised if there exists any patent that cannot be invalidated via prior art. It seems there is a strong correlation between the amount of information online and the probability of there existing easily accessible prior art for any arbitrary patent. In other words, if the amount of information on the web doubles every year, the probability of finding prior art that can…

The "information" on the web is not doubling. The number of accessible bytes are.

Ten million cat videos don't constitute prior art against RSA, for example.

Post reply on HN