Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#11

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 4:33 PM UTC

JamesArgo wrote: post #9

TallGuyShort wrote: post #2

I like this - it sounds like it's just adding transparency to get rid of the legal mind-games and intimidation. I had feared was that the plan was to effectively stop honoring patents under certain conditions. Although that would certainly be great in this specific situation, it presents a scary idea that rights or property* can be nullified after you've paid for it. More transparency and openness is good - not only…

IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself so healthy debate is welcomed :) Libertarians generally believe the government should exist enough to protect individual rights. They're okay with the government getting involved to stop one person from destroying another person's life or property. Although I'm all for innovation, I think there's a certain amount of lameness when people immediately steal another person's ideas just to compete directly against them. In such cases, I think a certain amount of IP is inherent and the government merely protects rights that already exist. I certainly agree with you that once patents can be sold multiple times and non-practicing entities can sue, this idea goes right out the window and I would completely agree with you. Even when I think it's just lame to take another's original idea and use it against them, I admit that lame != illegal, which is why I think it's a hard line to draw, and I'm not entirely convinced of my own opinion here - I'm just saying I think the increased transparency would be a definite improvement.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#12

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 4:38 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #10

JamesArgo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.

Are there really people who feel like the government shouldn't enforce property rights? Aren't those just called anarchists?

See my sibling post for more on my own opinion on the matter, but that all hinges on whether or not you consider IP property rights. Is the exclusive right to use an idea an inherent, basic human right, like freedom-of-religion or freedom-of-speech? Or is it a government granted monopoly?

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#13

Post by marshray » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #11

JamesArgo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself…

> When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in.

You call yourself a 'libertarian'?

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#14

Post by marshray » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

proland wrote: post #5

Anyone else find it ironic that the article opens with Apple being the victim of a broken patent system, when they have a long history of using the same broken system to their own ends?

Thus the problem with framing the discussion around patent "trolls" rather than patents themselves.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#15

Post by laserDinosaur » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 5:04 PM UTC

BigBalli wrote: post #3

as usual, a lot of talking, proposing good stuff but 1% gets done.

Right, why even bother trying to make change in the first place?

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#16

Post by danielweber » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #13

TallGuyShort wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself…

> When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. You call yourself a 'libertarian'?

No true Libertarian would believe X.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#17

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 5:13 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #13

TallGuyShort wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself…

> When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. You call yourself a 'libertarian'?

I described myself as "a bit of a Libertarian" because I generally agree with all major points on their platform - not because I change my opinion to match their platform. I also didn't say the government "should" step in - I said the government "does" step in - because currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#18

Post by JamesArgo » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 5:16 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #11

JamesArgo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP is a case of the government forbidding you from using the matter and energy you own in certain ways. I never understand libertarians who love government-granted IP rights.

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself…

Why 20 years? That's entirely arbitrary. Regarding your point about commerce, and the 'lameness' of an arbitrary class of competition, libertarians should encourage economic competition. Why does it suddenly become "lame" when a competitor "steals" someone's idea? Implementation is just as important as imagination. If another guy can beat you to the market even after you have the innovator's head start, you deserve to lose.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#19

Post by marshray » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 5:19 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #17

marshray wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. You call yourself a 'libertarian'?

I described myself as "a bit of a Libertarian" because I generally agree with all major points on their platform - not because I change my opinion to match their platform. I also didn't say the government "should" step in - I said the government "does" step in - because currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use.

> currently they do not prevent you from using ideas in patents for personal use

Is that true though?

I was under the impression that if someone patented a method of, say, making a sandwich, I could be sued for performing that invention in my own house for my own personal lunch.

Re: Obama to propose plan targeting patent trolls

#20

Post by showerst » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 5:27 PM UTC

JamesArgo wrote: post #18

TallGuyShort wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a bit of a libertarian myself, I think I have two points to add. First, IP doesn't (I think) and shouldn't ever stop you from doing whatever you want for yourself. I can infringe all the patents I want if I'm using my matter and energy to make stuff myself. When it becomes commerce, that's when the government steps in. Which brings me to my second and harder-to-explain point. I'm still thinking through this myself…

Why 20 years? That's entirely arbitrary. Regarding your point about commerce, and the 'lameness' of an arbitrary class of competition, libertarians should encourage economic competition. Why does it suddenly become "lame" when a competitor "steals" someone's idea? Implementation is just as important as imagination. If another guy can beat you to the market even after you have the innovator's head start, you deserve t…

I think it's because in the modern (say, post 1900) world, many inventions that increase utility (both for individuals and for everyone as a whole) cost a ton of money to research.

If your competition can instantly use that research, you may not recoup your costs, and thus have no incentive to do it in the first place. Drug patents are a clear example of this (although you might argue that altruism can also be a motive for researching drugs, in which case think jet engines or something).

Both individual and global welfare are improved if the drug is researched, but it won't happen without a government incentive; a drug has to be sold well above it's cost to produce + a small margin to recoup research costs, but it's possible for the competition to copy a drug once it's out and sell it for costs + a small margin and make a big profit.

20 years is arbitrary. In theory it's the number that the people come to as the best balance of allowing costs to be recouped without unduly hurting global utility due to monopoly, in reality it's a consequence of where lobbying takes us.