Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll • Hacker News Board

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#121

Post by noonespecial » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 5:16 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #120

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.

No, but it certainly increases the possibility you might see a cat chasing a laser pointer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#122

Post by jacques_chester » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 6:18 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #121

jacques_chester wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, but it certainly increases the possibility you might see a cat chasing a laser pointer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat

Touché.

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#123

Post by m12k » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:14 AM UTC

takluyver wrote: post #65

lukifer wrote: post #29

I've been thinking about the connection between biological signaling and advertising; like colored plumage or a large chest cavity, a multi-million ad campaign is a hard-to-fake signal, and in a way, such campaigns are as much about overt displays of power than the contents of the ad. In that sense, this move is the pinnacle of the best form of advertising. Whether they are acting out of pure altruism or pure strateg…

Actually, there's another similarity to biology. This also advertises to any other patent trolls thinking of suing them 'We are willing and able to fight back'. So patent trolls will pick on some other company that's more likely to pay up. Some species of antelope, when pursued by a predator, will suddenly leap high into the air, jumping from all four feet at once. This is called stotting, and the best theory for why…

That sounds very cool! Although the rationalization for it sounds rather contrived - to me at least any of these explanation would sound at least as plausible: 1) The sudden vertical movement may cause a predator that is used to tracking its prey horizontally to lose sight of the specific animal in the flock, thus making it harder to run it down. 2) Statistically, the jump may prove to evade a certain percentage of pounces from the predator, that happen to coincide with it. 3) The split second of "rest" while in the air allows the muscles to "recharge" enough energy to enable another small sprint, thus giving the antelope a lifeline. 4) "Look, I could just as well be kicking you in the head if you get too close"

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#124

Post by cynwoody » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:48 AM UTC

drakaal wrote: post #16

Patent trolls suck. But with out patents there is no incentive for innovation. The issue is not that Patents are bad, it is that you can patent a "unique way to swing on the playground" and be awarded a patent. Patent officer often don't know what they are awarding a patent for. This is supposed to be kept in check by the fact that you can fight a patent. I think that if you file a patent, sue someone over it, and lo…

> Patent trolls suck. But with out patents there is no incentive for innovation.

Tell it to Larry and Sergei.

Without patents, where would they be?

My guess is, just about where they are now. Plus a compounded increment for not having to pay patent lawyers along the way!

Re: Abolish The Patent, Vanquish The Troll

#125

Post by samuellevy » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 8:20 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #116

larrys wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Define "using" a domain name. I have a couple of domain names where my primary reason for holding them is for email addresses, or an inside joke with friends.

Admittedly, no-one is clamoring for these domain names, let alone offering me $7500 for them for their business, but just because you can't see the use doesn't mean that they're not being used.

Yes, domain name squatters suck, but they're making money, so they'll keep doing it, and there's no way to fairly stop them that doesn't take away my right to hold stupid domain names.