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

Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 222 posts

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#101

Post by McBun »

maratc wrote: post #40
tsimionescu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another poster I think put it better: what the patent is describing is essentially building a DNS system for data. Claim 1 describes how DNS forwarders work (the "client" is a DNS client, the "server" is a DNS forwarder, and the "data location server" is a DNS authoritative name server). Claim 10 then describes how a DNS recursive resolver works (the "client" is the rescursive resolver, and the "data location servers…

IANAL but there was a patent describing a USB-powered vibrator. While the idea of a vibrator is not new, and the idea of powering devices via USB isn't new either, the combination of these two non-new ideas was new. The patent was granted, and when someone (not the patent holder) produced a USB-powered vibrator, they were found in a violation of the patent in question. Similarly, if someone made a patent about "build…

That sounds ridiculous to me... By the same logic, I could patent a car that is charged by USB (not very efficient, but eh, it's new !) and then nobody could build a car charged via USB ?

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#102

Post by delfinom »

zoobab wrote: post #80

USPTO keep granting software patents despite Alice SCOTUS decision. This is a corrupt administration, that like the European Patent Office, finance itself over the amount of patents it grants.

No my dude, these patents are expired 4 years ago.

The problem with patents, you can file lawsuits over past infringement as long as the patent was valid when the infringement occurred.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#104

Post by MRtecno98 »

geysersam wrote: post #68
nness wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first patent was issued in the 1400's — it is exactly how humans have progressed technologically and sociality. Let's stop being so absolutist about these topics. The problem here isn't that patents exist, intellectual property protection is critical to investment and research. The issue here is two fold: 1. Patents usually involve a lot of research — and existed as a way to ensure that competition couldn't imita…

This comment implies that most of the massive technological innovation since 1400s came around because of patents. That's far from the truth. Patent systems that old were local and very different from the modern variant. Besides, most regions didn't have patent systems at all. The Netherlands didn't really get patent law until early 20th century. That didn't stop them from innovating and inventing. Germany similarly.

No, they are questioning the parent comment's argument that patents are against the basis for modern technological development itself, which is obviously false if patents where present well before this development

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#105

Post by yareal »

nness wrote: post #38
Jochim wrote: post #35

The concept of intellectual property is antithetical to how humans have progressed socially and technologically for millenia. It's a wasteful aberration that strangles innovation with red tape and hands control of our culture over to those with the financial mean to claim to own it. The day we wrest back that control will be a good day.

The first patent was issued in the 1400's — it is exactly how humans have progressed technologically and sociality. Let's stop being so absolutist about these topics. The problem here isn't that patents exist, intellectual property protection is critical to investment and research. The issue here is two fold: 1. Patents usually involve a lot of research — and existed as a way to ensure that competition couldn't imita…

Having worked at Amazon, patents there were "if you can imagine that software might be able to do a thing, patent it now". Absolutely no research was necessary, or indeed requested. You simply had to state "I have an idea".

In exchange you got a plastic puzzle piece to put on your desk. There's nothing more embarrassing to me than seeing a large number of those puzzle pieces in someone's care. You stood in the way of progress in service of Jeff Bezos? Awful.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#106

Post by MRtecno98 »

Jochim wrote: post #35

The concept of intellectual property is antithetical to how humans have progressed socially and technologically for millenia. It's a wasteful aberration that strangles innovation with red tape and hands control of our culture over to those with the financial mean to claim to own it. The day we wrest back that control will be a good day.

If there were no patents most of them would just be kept as secrets, and you would, for the most part, get right back where you started(if not in a worse position)

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#107

Post by yareal »

melagonster wrote: post #76
jampekka wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

R&D can be done without profit motive. Most R is done in universities without profit motive. Some argue that nothing gets done if somebody doesn't get capital gains for it. This is of course empirically flat out false.

unfortunately, drug designing is special condition here. the experiment of drugs spend cray amounts of money.

You wouldn't put aside, say, 3% of your taxes to fund research into medicine? Especially if that research focused not on "what's the most profitable medicine" but rather "what medicine would increase well being the most"?

You really can't imagine that decoupling the profit motive from drug research is possible?

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#108

Post by yareal »

McBun wrote: post #101
maratc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but there was a patent describing a USB-powered vibrator. While the idea of a vibrator is not new, and the idea of powering devices via USB isn't new either, the combination of these two non-new ideas was new. The patent was granted, and when someone (not the patent holder) produced a USB-powered vibrator, they were found in a violation of the patent in question. Similarly, if someone made a patent about "build…

That sounds ridiculous to me... By the same logic, I could patent a car that is charged by USB (not very efficient, but eh, it's new !) and then nobody could build a car charged via USB ?

You've correctly identified how patents work, at least in the U.S.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#109

Post by kick_in_the_dor »

Jochim wrote: post #35

The concept of intellectual property is antithetical to how humans have progressed socially and technologically for millenia. It's a wasteful aberration that strangles innovation with red tape and hands control of our culture over to those with the financial mean to claim to own it. The day we wrest back that control will be a good day.

...he comments on an article where the big rich tech company hands over money to the small guy he stole the idea from

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#110

Post by mminer237 »

hasmanean wrote: post #91
denton-scratch wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Patents almost never describe processes and technology with sufficient detail to reproduce them My father used to work for Pilkington's Glass. Pilkington invented the float-glass process, which made better, flatter glass than the plate-glass process. Yes, it was patented; but the main protection was control of know-how. When you licensed the process, you got several engineers onsite to make it work. This is similar…

Assassins are a step too far, but maybe advertising…let the public choose whether to buy the real deal instead of the parasitical imitators.

The public will buy the cheapest, almost-as-good option 99% of the time. If morality were a strong deciding factor, we wouldn't have megacorporations like Nestlé and Unilever making everything, nor would all of our clothes be made by sweatshops.

I'm not going to spend billions of dollars on some new gadget when every other company will have the exact same thing for sale next month with razor-thin margins. There's no way to make a living innovating.

Post reply on HN