The Patent Pledge • Hacker News Board

Re: The Patent Pledge

#131

Post by dotBen » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:02 AM UTC

I'd like to see a different Patent Pledge.

One where software engineers pledge not to participate in formal patent creation. Because ultimately, all of the software patents out there were 'authored' by a software engineer. You have to have the person that actually invented the new implementation on the document.

Sure, your employment contract says that any IP you create on your employer's dime is owned by your employer. And so, sure, they could go out and pursue a patent for some new implementation that you invent. But you can stand up and say no, that you won't participate in the 'patentization' of your work (ie the formal, legal work to obtain the patent).

And without your involvement, it would likely fail. It certainly makes a statement internally and externally, at least.

How does this work? Well, you can make that commitment - in writing and verbally - when you join a company. Or you could simply state as much, formerly, in an email to your boss and superiors tonight when you get home.

With the software engineering talent market what it is anyone but a dope-shit code monkey has the leverage to dictate terms.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#132

Post by briguy » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:02 AM UTC

I am sure there are a thousand reasons that these ideas would not be feasible, however I have been thinking of two other approaches towards software and business process patent reform. (1) would be to shorten the time that a patent is valid to 1 year . Give the Company who 'invents' (and goes through the patent process) a small head start, however in today's quickly changing world, I think that this shorter time-frame is more proportionally in-line with the R&D investment of these types of processes. Patents that protect the Physical items (that in general are more costly to develop and take a longer time to implement due to the more expensive and time consuming manufacturing processes) the protection would remain longer (engines, chip-sets, medicines, etc) I think that these shorter term-limits will shake out the patent trolls, yet still allow a patent holder some opportunity to leverage their work and license to companies that could not wait the 1 year, however after that, it is all about execution. (2)Perhaps another approach (and much less realistic) would be to keep the existing term limits, but have a prix-fixe license fee schedule/menu for all software and business processes. There would be a few Tiers of patents (i.e. Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, etc). You would apply to a patent (and a Class) and the license fees would spelled out for the annual license fees. Perhaps the Amazon 1-Click Patent would be Class-1 (i.e. "pretty darn obvious" and the fees would be $100 per year), etc. Anyone willing to pay the fee could license the patent (no one can be denied). This would also stop hoarding, and would allow people with legitimate inventions to monetize their investment, however still allow those that feel that they can execute to also move forward an innovate.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#133

Post by abbottry » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:07 AM UTC

People make crappy products then slap patents on them so no one can compete with them. For the greater good of society this should be illegal, competition breeds innovation right, if you make something crappy, you should welcome someone else to make it better, after all, if it was something you actually used, YOU would want it to be the best, no?

Also, patent trolls that create patents for ideas they have, and are completely incapable of executing.

Software patents are crap.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#134

Post by pg » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:11 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #95

pg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to start a movement, you can't aim too high initially, or you just stall. The patent pledge in its current form is at least fairly easy to swallow. If it sticks, it will have the effect of making patent suits against competitors seem more dubious, which would in turn prepare people for more exacting versions. How far ultimately would you want to push it? I honestly don't know yet. Patents may have some ut…

What is a good example of something that would have turned out worse if there hadn't been software patents? (I know you've argued before that software patents aren't fundamentally different than patents on anything else, but to a lot of people software patents have more obviously negative consequences).

The most famous example is probably Watt's steam engine. Bolton & Watt had high development costs and could not have gotten funding without their patent.

But once established they definitely used patents against smaller competitors. So it is hard to say for sure even in this case whether patents were a net win. They probably were though. The patent probably caused modern separate-condenser steam engines to happen at least a few years earlier.

(I recommend the story of Bolton & Watt to present day founders. It is remarkable how little has changed.)

Re: The Patent Pledge

#135

Post by fedcir » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:16 AM UTC

Afer reading the story about Ugmode/Modista, a suggestion for any start-up facing this problem in the future: GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT YOUR PROBLEM!

1. Escalating embarrassment of like.com could have soured their potential acquisitions and forced them to settle. 2. If lawyers hear about your problem, they might help you. If you had the ability to reach every lawyer, professor and law student in the country, you would find someone. (Maybe not someone great, but someone who can at least avoid a default judgment and keep you in the game for another couple of years, and possibly emerge victorious.)

n.b. You do not need, or, probably, want, a patent attorney to litigate a patent case. Patent attorneys do tedious stuff with the PTO, courtroom litigators convince judges and juries. Nor do you need a lawyer from your city or state. You could have some kid fresh out of law school in Alabama dialing in to Northern District of California judicial teleconferences and filing your motions electronically.

-- Former patent litigator who would have liked to help, if he'd heard about this

Re: The Patent Pledge

#136

Post by earbitscom » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:40 AM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #103

pg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to start a movement, you can't aim too high initially, or you just stall. The patent pledge in its current form is at least fairly easy to swallow. If it sticks, it will have the effect of making patent suits against competitors seem more dubious, which would in turn prepare people for more exacting versions. How far ultimately would you want to push it? I honestly don't know yet. Patents may have some ut…

Well, it stinks when you try to do something good and then catch a bunch of crap from people doing nothing, for not doing enough. So I don't want to do that. But here's the thing - while this is good, the Intellectual Ventures of the world are actually wining and dining congressional aides and maxing donations. The financial industry got that patent carve-out a couple months ago that only applied to their industry .…

That is the precise point of this initiative. Since lobbying for reform is timely, not going to make immediate change, and ultimately becomes a war of finances, the goal is to bring consumer awareness to the issue and create an environment where being on the pledge list is a big benefit to companies. It also puts those companies together on a team for this issue, which may lead to other "rules" that help force the change. Since it's not targeting patent trolls with actual products, you may even end up in a situation where large companies on the list decide that the only people they litigate against are those who are inhibiting innovation from others. For example, Bump won't license its patent to any companies not on the list. Basically, stop blocking innovation, or be blocked.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#137

Post by earbitscom » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:41 AM UTC

PG - Could this lead to companies on the list agreeing not to license their patents to patent-unfriendly companies? Seems that could do a lot to pressure bigger companies into leaving smaller companies alone.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#138

Post by rgoddard » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:44 AM UTC

damoncali wrote: post #128

artursapek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is own the patent for defensive purposes, not aggressive. "Patent pacifism," if you will.

I don't understand how one would defend their patented innovation without suing someone else? Or are you suggesting that the patent only be used as a counter-suit after being sued for infringement of a different patent? I mean, the whole point of a patent is to be able to sue people who are competing with you. How can that ever be defensive?

Unlike trademarks, you can hold a patent without having to defend it. You are not legally required to use it. So the choice to use it is yours. The logic behind defensive patents is similar to creating nuclear weapons as a deterrent and the theory of mutually assured destruction.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#139

Post by jbooth » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 12:47 AM UTC

earbitscom wrote: post #136

jbooth wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it stinks when you try to do something good and then catch a bunch of crap from people doing nothing, for not doing enough. So I don't want to do that. But here's the thing - while this is good, the Intellectual Ventures of the world are actually wining and dining congressional aides and maxing donations. The financial industry got that patent carve-out a couple months ago that only applied to their industry .…

That is the precise point of this initiative. Since lobbying for reform is timely, not going to make immediate change, and ultimately becomes a war of finances, the goal is to bring consumer awareness to the issue and create an environment where being on the pledge list is a big benefit to companies. It also puts those companies together on a team for this issue, which may lead to other "rules" that help force the ch…

Yeah, since posting I realized that a list of pledgees is exactly the kind of list you want if you're going to form an industry association based around this issue. So good on pg in general.

Re: The Patent Pledge

#140

Post by marquis » Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 1:18 AM UTC

I'm a fan of the declared, taxable value of patents rather than making an arbitrary pledge that could result in a surprise attack.

My main concern is that the knowledge of a small company possibly infringing on IP (regardless of whether you feel patents exist or not) greatly disrupts the acquisition options by a larger company, as they would devalue the smaller company based on expected patent licensing/legal attacks.