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

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#191

Post by superuser »

queensnake wrote: post #189
superuser wrote: post #181

I'm a little surprised that patent trolls get such a bad rap on hacker news. I would argue that patent trolls exists to protect the small inventors. Without patent trolls, the big companies can easily infringe the small inventors' patents knowing full well that the little guys can't afford to go up against them in court. The patent trolls merely step in to enforce the rights of the small inventors. That is not to say…

No, the difference is in the added word troll , not simply a defender . Trolls are non-practicing, and produce nothing and protect nothing. I'm sure a legitimate 'little guy' with a patent would get all the sympathy he deserves here, unless perhaps, as you mention, it's a software patent.

I think you're missing the point. You can't distinguish between the patent troll and the little guy inventor because their rights are one and the same. A patent troll purchases the right to enforce a patent from an inventor who would otherwise not have the resources to enforce it himself. It is that right, the right granted to the inventor, that is being enforced. Without the patent troll the inventor's rights would get trampled by the large corporations. Hence, the patent troll is defending the small inventor's rights.

The fact that the patent troll is not practicing the invention matters not. There is no requirement that a patent holder practice the patent in order to enforce it. I can assure you the big corporations do not practice all patents they hold and enforce, many just get licensed out - and there's nothing wrong with that. But there also shouldn't be anything wrong with the small inventor doing the same thing, except for him it often requires the help of a patent troll. The patent troll is just doing for the inventor what the big corporations do for themselves, thus leveling the playing field.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#192

Post by shawnreilly »

ubernostrum wrote: post #179
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…

Cross-licensing and other "we won't sue you if you don't sue us" foundations get created at the rate of about one a year. If the previous iterations all failed to do anything meaningful, why do you believe that starting yet another iteration will do something meaningful?

I would not agree that previous iterations have failed to do anything meaningful. It is very hard to gauge the success of a non-assertion pledge or defensive patent pool. For example, if you take Google's Pledge of MapReduce related patents, one could argue that Google has helped accelerate innovation in the Big Data space. The resulting Businesses and Products, and their resulting Revenues and Market Caps could possibly be considered data points indicating success. The same could be said for the Open Invention Network and Linux, which has accelerated innovation in Infrastructure, Security, and many other industries. The problem is, it's hard to measure this success, and in many cases the benefits are not realized for quite some time.

I believe that the Open patent Foundation has the potential to do something meaningful because the Community will determine the scope, focus, and relating Licenses. This creates the potential to positively impact a large range of industries. This could apply to Technology, Software, Medicine, Energy, and many other industries where Patent Trolling or similar extortion related tactics have stalled innovation. The concept of an Open Patent License won't stop Patent Trolling overnight. But it will give the Community a standardized method to share future innovations, effectively providing the potential to accelerate innovation over time (from Today moving forward).

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#193

Post by arxpoetica »

arxpoetica wrote: post #62
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…

Before I even got to the end of your post, my mind was already thinking about crowdsourcing the system. THIS. NEEDS. TO. HAPPEN.

Why was this downvoted? It's a completely positive comment. Are patent trolls downvoting on ynews? :)

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#194

Post by dreamdu5t »

afternooner wrote: post #162
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 system is working perfectly, if you subscribe to the belief that you can own an idea. If an idea can be property, and you can control how your property is used and distributed just like any other property you own. I can not make a product, but simply licence it's use. A middle man is after all the bulk of capitalism. The patent trolls are a solid business model, and the system isn't broken. Again, this is only if…

The cognitive dissonance is somewhat disturbing to witness. People decry patent trolls while simultaneously supporting patents. Everyone agrees that excluding others from building a fire because you "own" the process of building a fire would be ridiculous - yet will turn around and apply that same logic to defend patents and copyright.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#195

Post by [deleted] »

mcherm wrote: post #130
weland wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> this should be transported into criminal charges brought against the make-believe CEOs behind the shell companies Ah, but the original proposal was for individuals to file lawsuits. Individuals cannot press criminal charges -- only the state (in the form of the prosecutor's office) can do that. And the state can not (and SHOULD NOT) use that power to go after individuals because we don't like those people, or becau…

[deleted]

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#196

Post by grkvlt »

a_c_s wrote: post #180
dagw wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could the company being sued start playing the same game? As soon one is sued by a troll, reconfigure the 'offending' bit into an asset-less shell company that you purchase/license/etc. things from.

No, you would have to do that before being sued, for obvious reasons...

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#197

Post by rthomas6 »

jessaustin wrote: post #186
yxhuvud wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in a country where the default is that the loser pays (within reason), I must wonder: Why is discouraging litigation a bad thing?

Siblings have plausible explanations. Another reason, however, is that we have so many lawyers, and they must be employed somehow, otherwise one of them might take the judge's job. Why not employ the teeming masses in litigation and/or the prevention of litigation?

Uh, because employing the teeming masses in production of goods that improve the quality of life is better than jobs for their own sake.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#198

Post by stcredzero »

weland wrote: post #121
edanm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somethin…

I'm not sure if that could be worked out in a fair manner. Holding patents as a nearly-bankrupt company that's essentially out of business is not necessarily to be forbidden -- it can still be used constructively, e.g. by licensing them free of charge to non-profit organizations in order to relieve some of the uncertainty of potential donors. Just like with extortion, the fact that it can be punished is pretty much t…

How about a licensing requirement for non-earning, non implementing companies? If they don't have revenues that haven't been awarded by a judge, require them to license according to a schedule determined by a regulatory board.

Re: Don't mess with Newegg

#199

Post by weland »

stcredzero wrote: post #198
weland wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if that could be worked out in a fair manner. Holding patents as a nearly-bankrupt company that's essentially out of business is not necessarily to be forbidden -- it can still be used constructively, e.g. by licensing them free of charge to non-profit organizations in order to relieve some of the uncertainty of potential donors. Just like with extortion, the fact that it can be punished is pretty much t…

How about a licensing requirement for non-earning, non implementing companies? If they don't have revenues that haven't been awarded by a judge, require them to license according to a schedule determined by a regulatory board.

Hm, good point. My difficulty was this: if a company holds patents that it is not exploiting, all they're doing is adding unneeded pressure on competitors who have to think twice about implementing something similar because you never know when the other guys might sue. On the other hand, it also seems unfair to force patents away from companies that, while having financial difficulties, would also actually like to exploit those patents and simply need some time to find additional income sources.

This would actually be a good idea: such companies should be required to either present a good schedule for how they intend to actively use the patents they hold, with the implementation of that schedule supervised by a third-party (maybe state?) representative. Companies that fail to implement their patents should be subject to limitations that discourage them from using the patents in an anti-competitive fashion, or simply for financial gains that do not result in any implementation.

There could be a ton of variations on this theme. For instance, companies could be required to pay a certain fee for each patent they hold, that decreases if the patent is actually implemented and increases (possibly to impractical amounts) for every year that it is not implemented. This way, companies would be discouraged from hoarding patents, while actively offering an incentive for implementing technology they claim to be patentable.

Post reply on HN