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

Don't mess with Newegg

blog.newegg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#111

Post by allanb »

aidenn0 wrote: post #102
wutbrodo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN community collectively hasn't ever been able to grasp this concept; apparently if a corporation has any possible benefit from an action, it MUST be the motivation behind the action. It's a particularly delightful cop-out because any positive action (including philanthropy) can be dismissed as a PR move.

I vaguely remember reading about some philosophy where there was no such thing as a selfless act, as you always get something out of it, even if it's just a warm fuzzy feeling inside. That's just one example of why I find most of philosophy to be a complete waste of time.

Relying on vague memories for such broad judgements. Seems like a sound philosophy to me ;)

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#112

Post by shawnreilly »

gioele wrote: post #105
shawnreilly wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the last Startup Weekend Honolulu 2014, I introduced my approach towards solving this problem; The Open Patent Foundation (Non-Profit). Similar to concepts such as Creative Commons, and Open Source Software Licenses, the idea is to create Open Patent License(s) that standardize a method to share intellectual property with the Community. While this does not directly solve the problem, I think it is a necessary firs…

How is that different from OIN [1]? [1] http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ «The Open Invention Network is a shared defensive patent pool with the mission to protect Linux. Launched in 2005, OIN has strong industry support with backing from Google, IBM, NEC, Philips, Red Hat, Sony and SUSE (a business unit of Novell). Any company, project or developer that is working on Linux, GNU, Android or any other Linux-related…

The underlying concepts and the approach are very similar. The idea of a non-assertion pledge (or defensive patent pool) is a refreshing example of forward thinking Businesses and Organizations that recognize the adverse effects that Patent Trolling has on innovation. Google is a great example [1]. The Open Patent Foundation takes this concept, and applies it with a different approach. Instead of choosing a specific focus or scope, we want to allow the Community (as a whole) to drive the creation of Open Patent License(s). The end result would be a set of Licenses that any Person or Organization could use and apply towards any Intellectual Property or Patents they may own. So some of them may end up being specific to Software. others may end up being specific to Utility Patents. And yet others might end up being non-specific in terms of application, but specific to a Time Period, or perhaps Distribution Guidelines. It would be up to the Community to decide what we want to use, and that is what (IMO) makes the entire concept so powerful. It is not implied to be a better approach, just a new one. In the end, all of these types of movements are positive. The end goal is to accelerate innovation and stop Patent Trolling.

http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#113

Post by dTal »

hkmurakami wrote: post #35

Personally, I love the fact that this title evokes the "Don't mess with Texas" line, given that it's the East Texas courts that aid patent trolls so greatly.

That caught my eye. Surely that's evidence of corruption in itself, if a particular area's courts seem unusually biased in a particular direction?

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#114

Post by jacquesm »

dagw wrote: post #98
sytelus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If troll files bankruptcy, can't the winner claim their assets, i.e., junk patents as payment? Isn't this even better because troll now loses the weapon itself to cause more damage? Lot of tech companies are sitting on mountain of cash. There is absolutely no reason for them not to go after trolls with 1000% vengeance and eik out every possible cent from them even it cost 10X more to them. I'm dumb founded that no on…

Often the the shell companies don't actually own the patents, they just license them from the parent company. This way when the shell company loses and goes bankrupt the licenses is automatically revoked and there is nothing left to claim. Patent trolls might be evil, but unfortunately most of them aren't stupid.

If a shell company does not own the patent how can they (as a licensee) sue for infringement?

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#115

Post by pizza234 »

mixmax wrote: post #14

It seems to me that the legal system in the US is largely broken, and that just about anyone can be sued if only you find the right grounds. Being sued and defending yourself is enormously expensive which is what patent trolls exploit. Why not use this offensively against patent trolls? Find all sorts of ways to take them to court, the American legal seems to have plenty of opportunities in that regard. There are som…

The biggest factor in the problem is the US administration complicity, plain and simple.

It's not a technical problem, it's a social one; the are simple ways to largely reduce the problem, which are not applied, because it would hurt corporate interests.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#116

Post by dagw »

jacquesm wrote: post #114
dagw wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often the the shell companies don't actually own the patents, they just license them from the parent company. This way when the shell company loses and goes bankrupt the licenses is automatically revoked and there is nothing left to claim. Patent trolls might be evil, but unfortunately most of them aren't stupid.

If a shell company does not own the patent how can they (as a licensee) sue for infringement?

The parent company simply writes that into the license. Companies like Intellectual Ventures set up a shell company and give that company a time limited exclusive right to some patents, including the right to sue other companies for infringement, during that time period. In exchange for this exclusive license the shell company agrees to pay, let's say, 95% of any revenue generated by sub-licensing or court settlements to the parent company.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#117

Post by jacquesm »

dagw wrote: post #116
jacquesm wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a shell company does not own the patent how can they (as a licensee) sue for infringement?

The parent company simply writes that into the license. Companies like Intellectual Ventures set up a shell company and give that company a time limited exclusive right to some patents, including the right to sue other companies for infringement, during that time period. In exchange for this exclusive license the shell company agrees to pay, let's say, 95% of any revenue generated by sub-licensing or court settlement…

Incredible that such a transparent strategy would not be punctured in court. Just requiring that the principal holder of a patent is the only one with standing to sue for infringement would get rid of this particular trick immediately.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#118

Post by levosmetalo »

dagw wrote: post #98
sytelus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If troll files bankruptcy, can't the winner claim their assets, i.e., junk patents as payment? Isn't this even better because troll now loses the weapon itself to cause more damage? Lot of tech companies are sitting on mountain of cash. There is absolutely no reason for them not to go after trolls with 1000% vengeance and eik out every possible cent from them even it cost 10X more to them. I'm dumb founded that no on…

Often the the shell companies don't actually own the patents, they just license them from the parent company. This way when the shell company loses and goes bankrupt the licenses is automatically revoked and there is nothing left to claim. Patent trolls might be evil, but unfortunately most of them aren't stupid.

Then just take a vengeance legal actions against a parent company, not against an empty shell.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#119

Post by edanm »

weland wrote: post #104
bsder wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the troll companies are always shell companies with nothing but the patents. So, even if you win, the shell company will declare bankruptcy. This is what changed the game. Before, two big companies generally had enough patents that they would simply agree to cross license because they both infringed one another's patents. So, for the company being sued, it's a no win situation.

IMHO, this should not be dealt with at a company level, since the shell company is arguably not engaged in any economic activity: their juridical entity is, essentially, worthless. Instead, given the toxic economic climate the people behind it create, this should be transported into criminal charges brought against the make-believe CEOs behind the shell companies that specifically engage in patent trolling. They're a…

If everyone agrees that it's a "con", as you put it, wouldn't it be easier to just change the rules to prevent it happening, instead of letting it still happen but criminalizing people who do it?

There's a system, there are rules. Some people have found ways to utilize those rules which many of us think are bad. The solution should be to change the system and the rules, not criminalize more people for doing something that is currently entirely legal.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#120

Post by mercurial »

lotharbot wrote: post #73
joshjdr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The response here has been a surge of "I'd do more business with Newegg because of this." I stated my point. I agree with this point of the article, but I wouldn't do business with these guys. For the record, the letter previously published outlined exactly what happened. They shipped me an item that came out of the box broken. When I wrote to them they responded acknowledging, and issued an RMA. When they received t…

> "I am surprised I am losing karma for this. For what? An opposing view?" As I said above, here on HN, mere truth is not enough to make us consider a comment to be a positive contribution. We select for interesting and directly relevant comments. Your comment is honest, but doesn't particularly add value to the discussion; you might consider it relevant, but I find it tangential and uninteresting. Downvotes are the…

> Downvotes are the HN community's way of signaling that this is not the sort of comment we'd like you to make on this story.

"should be the HN community's way" would be more accurate. It's not hard to find interesting comments downvoted because people disagree with them.

Post reply on HN