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

Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#71

Post by abrichr »

gcb0 wrote: post #66
kn0thing wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In researching my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission, I found a great letter from Jefferson that went so far as to consider putting limits in the Bill of Rights: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding__years but for no longer term and no other purpose." Letter to James Madison, August 28, 1789 http://www.found…

Those letters are quaint and all, but unless ratified in laws are off topic.

I disagree. As per the HN Guidelines [1]:

> On-Topic: ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#72

Post by noonespecial »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #11
linuxhansl wrote: post #5

I should get a patent on "making money by asserting patents". Then I would only grant myself a license and hence have the only patent left that can make money. Seriously. The way out is a blanket "No software patents" statement from congress; or along the line of what Twitter is doing where all inventors have to agree if their patent is used offensively (although lawyers at my company tell me that such a restriction…

Too late ( https://www.google.com/patents/WO2004095226A2?cl=en&dq=%22pa... ). Dude beat you to it by several years.

Too late!? Never! Just change the wording slightly and they'll issue it to you again as well. A few well aimed s///g's is about all it takes these days.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#74

Post by WildUtah »

Andrenid wrote: post #48
sergiotapia wrote: post #38

Question: If I build a start up here in Bolivia, it gets big among Latinamerican users - can I take a huge giant shit on the US patent system? Or does the patent system apply if my website application code is hosted on US servers?

I'm curious about this too. Do patents only apply to US owned/registered companies or can companies/people from other countries get in trouble for hosting patent-infringing code on Amazon/etc

From Title 35 US Code section 271 (35 USC 271)

>>>>>

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer. So host your site abroad and don't induce US customers to use your software within the USA. Running your software abroad and soliciting US customers to run your software on your servers abroad would seem not to be covered. Check with your lawyer; laws are often interpreted to mean the opposite of the plain meaning of the text.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#75

Post by philsmith35 »

abrichr wrote: post #71
gcb0 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those letters are quaint and all, but unless ratified in laws are off topic.

I disagree. As per the HN Guidelines [1]: > On-Topic: ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. [1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think he meant off-topic in a legal discussion because they are merely a lawmakers opinions and not actually law.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#76

Post by jivatmanx »

kn0thing wrote: post #65
jivatmanx wrote: post #18

"A man has a right to use a saw, an axe, a plane, separately; may he not combine their uses on the same piece of wood? He has a right to use his knife to cut his meat, a fork to hold it; may a patentee take from him the right to combine their use on the same subject? Such a law, instead of enlarging our conveniences, as was intended, would most fearfully abridge them, and crowd us by monopolies out of the use of the…

In researching my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission, I found a great letter from Jefferson that went so far as to consider putting limits in the Bill of Rights: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding__years but for no longer term and no other purpose." Letter to James Madison, August 28, 1789 http://www.found…

Jefferson was the U.S.'s first patent examiner, this eventually became one of his most time consuming duties. It's claimed that this indicates he supported patents, which is false, as this letter, written well after his duties, shows[0]. He was simply trying to have them applied as granted as strictly as possible

[0]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.... Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson 13 Aug. 1813 Writings 13:333--35

Jefferson was, of course, an inventor himself, though not as prolific of one as Benjamin Franklin, who also opposed patents.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#77

Post by beedogs »

michaelhoffman wrote: post #6

This is another example of a patent with a specific scope being given an incredibly broad title. This patent is actually on selling web site commenters the ability to have their comment appear in some kind of distinctive format, which might be a different font, or it might be appearing before the other comments.

...which still should never have been granted a fucking patent. That is absolutely block-headedly idiotic.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#78

Post by sytelus »

Couple of years back I'd proposed a cure for patent trolls: Large tech companies form a non-profit group and preemptively attack patent portfolio of companies that they mutually agree to be trolls. The entire business model of trolls hang on a fact that they will be the first attacker so their litigation expenses are small. If a patent troll gets spammed with 100s of lawsuits for bad patent grants at the same time, they will go out of business just from the expense of litigation or at least trolling would not be as much lucrative. Obviously this plan has its own risk: this non-profit group can start attacking legitimate patent holders to keep them out of the game. But even bigger issue is that lot of large companies are already in bed with largest trolls themselves such as IV. I don't see other great ways to curb trolling. The effort like Ask Patent can prevent some bad future patents but it would be very hard to get law in place that cancels bad patents that have already been granted.

Re: Patent US8296192 – Method for making money on the internet

#80

Post by sanderjd »

gcb0 wrote: post #66
kn0thing wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In researching my forthcoming book, Without Their Permission, I found a great letter from Jefferson that went so far as to consider putting limits in the Bill of Rights: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding__years but for no longer term and no other purpose." Letter to James Madison, August 28, 1789 http://www.found…

Those letters are quaint and all, but unless ratified in laws are off topic.

It may be off topic in an argument against the propriety of a specific patent within the current system, but is absolutely on topic in an argument favoring reform due to that system having overstepped its initial charter. I think your parent was making the latter argument.
Post reply on HN