Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#11

Post by justinsb » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:33 AM UTC

Perhaps these patent deals that are putting a price on inventions (particularly at the billion dollar valuation level) will encourage companies to spend _more_ on R&D - hiring more highly skilled workers - because they can create relevant patents more cheaply than they can buy them.

The suggestion that abolishing patents will cause companies to spend that money hiring people instead is not intuitively obvious to me. It sounds a lot like trickle-down economics, which may be intellectually appealing but doesn't seem to have worked out as originally expected.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#12

Post by KeithMajhor » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:34 AM UTC

AgentConundrum wrote: post #6

watty wrote: post #3

Think of all the jobs required to fight these patents in court.

"Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"

I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#13

Post by justinsb » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:35 AM UTC

maeon3 wrote: post #10

While we are patenting every line of every software program ever written, we should also patent colors, smells, tastes, sounds, sensations, thoughts, individual words, photographs, individual syllables, and visual/body language gestures. How come lines of code fall under the category of 'invention', But English sayings, phrases and quotes do not?

"English sayings, phrases and quotes" would come under copyright law instead of patent law, but can still enjoy IP protection.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#14

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:36 AM UTC

KeithMajhor wrote: post #12

AgentConundrum wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"

I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.

[deleted]

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#15

Post by AgentConundrum » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:40 AM UTC

azakai wrote: post #7

AgentConundrum wrote: post #2

I really wish he had been a little clearer on what these patent trolls are and why they're bad. I'm sure most people here on HN understand what's going on, but this article is little more than preaching to the choir without that extra clarification. As it stands right now, this article has sort of a whining feel to it. "All my companies are getting sued because we're infringing patents, and I'm sick of paying for it!…

I don't know, I thought he cut right to the chase: > Google just spent $900mm buying a patent collection. Other big companies are spending the same way. That is money that for many companies would have gone to job creation. That's exactly right. That money is going into the pockets of $500/hour lawyers instead of creating jobs for people that produce products. Just the public patent deals of the last few months amoun…

He's arguing the impact of it, but I'm saying he failed to clarify why they shouldn't have to pay for the $500/hour lawyers and the multi-million dollar patent packages.

> He could have explained more about how the vast majority of software patents are dubious at best, etc.

That's all I'm saying. He needs to explain why he shouldn't have to defend himself against patents, rather than just complaining that it's too expensive. Defending yourself against any lawsuit is expensive, but if you've done something wrong then it has to be done. Cuban just didn't take the time to explain that his companies hadn't done anything objectively wrong.

I wasn't disagreeing with him at all - I agree that there needs to be patent reform - but I just thought that he didn't adequately state his case. He complained about how expensive it was to have to deal with the lawsuits, but never made a compelling argument as to why those lawsuits were unjust.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#16

Post by AgentConundrum » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:42 AM UTC

KeithMajhor wrote: post #12

AgentConundrum wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"

I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.

I honestly can't tell if your comment is sarcastic or not.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#17

Post by sage_joch » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:46 AM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

A more realistic first step might be "no new software patents". Otherwise it could be a pretty fierce fight with existing stakeholders, who would view abolition similarly to a nullification of a stock portfolio.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#18

Post by danielharan » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:49 AM UTC

pbh wrote: post #9

According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban has $2.5 billion. If he thinks the patents are bogus (which I totally believe), why not fight a high profile, precedent setting case? If he thinks the law is broken, why not lobby for patent reform? Or a loser-pays system?

Do you know he's not doing those?

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#19

Post by neutronicus » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 2:49 AM UTC

KeithMajhor wrote: post #12

AgentConundrum wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"

I've heard that argument and I just don't know how to respond to it. Why would you ever want to _create_ jobs. People don't need jobs. They need food and cars and what not. To my way of thinking jobs should be actively destroyed.

The problem is that "job" is synonymous with "entitlement to food, cars, and whatnot". There would be considerably less uproar over job creation if the jobless were guaranteed a house in the suburbs, an automobile, and food for a spouse and two kids.

Given the choice between

1. Being satisfied that society is moving forward in some abstract sense because your job has been rendered unnecessary.

and

2. Being reasonably sure that there will be a roof over your head and food in your children's bellies in a year and a day.

most people pick 2.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#20

Post by kenjackson » Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 3:11 AM UTC

sage_joch wrote: post #17

ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

A more realistic first step might be "no new software patents". Otherwise it could be a pretty fierce fight with existing stakeholders, who would view abolition similarly to a nullification of a stock portfolio.

I agree, although I'd make it broader, because SW patents is too tough to define and isn't the only place this problem exists.

No one really has a great definition for SW patent, especially since most SW patents are embodied as HW. Is the x86 architecture patentable considering one can implement it all in SW? Is signal multiplexing technology a SW patent? What about robotics in general?

I frankly don't think it can be done easily. I think it would be easier to say, "no patents, except drugs". And then carefully define drugs. I honestly don't think patents in the large are useful anymore, except in the case of drugs.