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

Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 193 posts

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#151

Post by zyrthofar »

josephlord wrote: post #138
zyrthofar wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. It's no indication, but it would generate fear and doubt when I code. What if the code I'm writing right now is patented by some company taking advantage of a system, with resources searching everywhere just to sue? I probably wouldn't, but I could become paranoiac because of this, looking on the internet to find if I am infringing patents, instead of being productive. It's true 1.36% seems like nothing,…

I really wouldn't let it worry you, there are many more things likely to make you fail than patents unless you are going into an especially patent heavy field (such as video codecs). Patent holders generally need to target big players to get worthwhile payoffs so unless you are big (in which case you have already won) then it is only the Lodsys type scum you need to worry about trying to extort you (in which case you…

If you have a startup that you care about, at the end of the day it isn't all about money.

Thanks for the healthy dose of optimism and realism :). I'll keep that in mind.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#152

Post by Goronmon »

zaroth wrote: post #104

The money is going to the guy who patented a crucial part of Google's AdWords algorithm which neither they nor Bing can apparently design around. The guy got crushed in the market, being just a little fish, he was gobbled right up. But he bought back his patent, and took the fight to Google and Bing and won. You can argue the percentage calculation is a too rich by an order of magnitude or two (and I think it is), bu…

The money is going to the guy who patented a crucial part of Google's AdWords algorithm which neither they nor Bing can apparently design around.

Was the patent obvious? Nope.

These comments seem to be at odds with on another. If the patent covers an algorithm that is a natural solution to the problem multiple companies are trying to solve, doesn't that mean the solution is 'obvious'?

Is that how we want software development to work? I solve a technical problem in an application, but because someone I've never heard of on the other side of the country happened to patent that solution first, I can be sued for money? Sure, it benefits the people who file patents, but I don't think patents should exist solely because they can profit a revenue stream to the people who file them.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#153

Post by Goronmon »

zaroth wrote: post #149
skj wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's remember that when the guy was "gobbled right up", Google was a dozen people with one server in a garage. The fact that multiple entities came up with this idea, without communication of the idea between them, means that it was more a function of the environment the idea was conceived in than the person who did the conceiving.

Agree with everything you've said, and I still think Google has to pay for infringing. Patents are NOT just to prevent copying. Patents are not supposed to be worthless against larger companies who can just replicate your work without your help. If you could just re-engineer any patented invention, patents would be worthless. Companies would be incentivized to bury their heads in the sand so they could be sure they w…

Patents are not supposed to be worthless against larger companies who can just replicate your work without your help.

If people can replicate your work without having to look at any specific about your work, why should your work be patentable?

What about if you reverse the actors in your example? Should large companies with vast warchests filled with patents be allowed to strong arm smaller competitors who likely don't have nearly as many patents with which to defend themselves?

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#154

Post by pm90 »

rayiner wrote: post #150
zanny wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue you'd get more economic benefit abolishing patents entirely (not just the software ones, I mean the ones on reproducing someone elses car or gas furnace). You pay a cost in a loss of investment valuation towards invention because it is less economically beneficial if you can't have a monopoly on your patented good, but you benefit economically by letting new inventions reach natural price equilibrium immedi…

Being "first to market" only matters when you're building things like Facebook or Windows, where network effects are relevant. If you're making consumable or durable goods, being first to market is irrelevant. India will clone your drug within a few months of its release, but there is no way you'll make up all that capital investment by then. Without patents, the rational thing to do is not invest any more in an inve…

Yes, its only recently with software that patents have really come to hurt. Maybe that's because most engineering disciplines do not patent frivolously, or maybe that not many patents in these areas can generate so many billions in revenue.

(PS: Please don't use the term "India" to refer to certain Indian Biotech companies that reverse engineer patented pharmaceuticals developed in the US)

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#155

Post by Goronmon »

colechristensen wrote: post #25

Good. There are few things which can effect change better than billionaires in fear of losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. When it happens to small fry you lament because they can't do anything to change and end up settling to save themselves or losing and losing everything. When it happens to the 55th largest company you rejoice because they have the power and motivation to change the rules.

When it happens to the 55th largest company you rejoice because they have the power and motivation to change the rules.

Or they realize that fighting the system is a suckers game and join in, this cementing the system against their competition.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#156

Post by mmorris »

rayiner wrote: post #150
zanny wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue you'd get more economic benefit abolishing patents entirely (not just the software ones, I mean the ones on reproducing someone elses car or gas furnace). You pay a cost in a loss of investment valuation towards invention because it is less economically beneficial if you can't have a monopoly on your patented good, but you benefit economically by letting new inventions reach natural price equilibrium immedi…

Being "first to market" only matters when you're building things like Facebook or Windows, where network effects are relevant. If you're making consumable or durable goods, being first to market is irrelevant. India will clone your drug within a few months of its release, but there is no way you'll make up all that capital investment by then. Without patents, the rational thing to do is not invest any more in an inve…

Not disagreeing with your point, but I chuckled a bit at your examples. I wouldn't qualify either Facebook or Windows as being "first to market".

Though I think this mainly just points out the squishiness of the term.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#157

Post by gohrt »

omni wrote: post #147
mythz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, hedging against patent trolls by backing them is some sick and twisted logic.

It's entirely logical. You're talking about emotions, not logic. Patent trolls win => his legit companies lose value, his patent troll gains value Patent trolls lose => legit companies gain value, patent trolls lose value

To be clear, it is the same logic that justifies patent trolling.

Imagine if some startup "hedged" by covertly transfering funds from customers' bank accounts when they cancel their subscriptions:

Great product => paying customers

Bad product => steal money from customers

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#158

Post by gohrt »

josephlord wrote: post #127
zyrthofar wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a programmer, this is exactly what I fear. It is also why I will not create a startup company, and have my dream crash because of a failed and corrupt system.

Assuming this goes through with no successful appeal Google will have to pay 1.36% of their revenue related to a particular infringing product to Vringo for a period for which they were well aware of this patent until it expires in 2016. This example gives nothing to indicate that any business you start will be crippled by patent issues. Now legal costs and/or Lodsys like trolls might be a real threat to a fledgling…

1.36% of revenue could be 100% of profit, in some cases.

Re: Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue

#159

Post by Glyptodon »

andrewfong wrote: post #84
dangrossman wrote: post #2

> Even though there was no evidence of copying—Vringo admitted as much What a ridiculous system we all operate under. You come up with a mathematical formula for ranking some text on a page (in this case, what ads to show first), and you could now owe $250M/year to some company you've never heard of because they already bought the rights to that formula. It turns my stomach; sorry that I have nothing of more substanc…

The lack of an independent invention defense (or some variation of this) is pretty much 80% of what's wrong with patent law in my opinion. A sampling of the issues an independent invention addresses: * Obviousness. Patents are required to be non-obvious to a "person holding ordinary skill in the art", but obviousness is highly subjective and difficult to assess (especially for a non-technical jury). In contrast, eval…

I don't see why independent invention wouldn't lead to a legal assumption of obviousness. Independent invention seems like incredibly clear cut proof of obviousness to me, anyway.
Post reply on HN