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

Even experts get it wrong

notch.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#141

Post by pbhjpbhj »

DanWaterworth wrote: post #121
anthonyb wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely different. For starters, there's the "reasonable person" test. No reasonable person is going to think that murder is legal. Intentionally infringing a patent is punished much more harshly, and it's impossible to keep up with the millions of patents that are published, so being intentionally unaware is actually a decent legal defence. And yes, this does mean that patents are generally pretty useless fo…

Also, I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also patent infringement if the following happens: A patent is filed for technique X by company A, Company B use technique X having created it independently, The patent is issued to Company A, Company B is now infringing upon Company A's patent. Company B could not possibly have committed patent infringement intentionally, because the patent they infrin…

The key issue of disclosure - your 3rd step - happens at A-publication which is usually quite some time prior to the patent being granted but still can be a couple of years after the filing date. (this is the source of many of the 'I can't believe they granted this patent' articles because the A-document is printed from the submission prior to substantive examination).

I don't know about the US situation but in the UK Section 64 of the Patents Act (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/p-law/p-manual/p-... and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/64) allows a person to continue activity which was started prior to the grant of a patent in secret or where sufficient preparations for that [infringing] activity were made prior to the application/grant in good faith. If the activity wasn't in secret then it forms part of the prior art and invalidates, or forces amendment of, the patent in question.

If there isn't an equivalent US clause I'd be surprised: 35 U.S.C. 273 "Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor." looks like a candidate.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#142

Post by ThePherocity »

SilasX wrote: post #120
radarsat1 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn't property, I can't hold on to it, I can't touch it, and I can't steal it. You don't have any right to an idea over any other human. This is an abstract construct which attempts to create an artificial commodity where there isn't one. Apart from "holding on to it," what you say in the quote sentence is true for pretty much any property. In a strict sense, property is what you can defend. However, in order st…

Another example is stock ownership, i.e. partial, tradeable ownership of a venture. No, you can't hold it in your hands[1], but people understand that it's property in all the relevant senses and can be meaningfully said to be "stolen" (e.g., if the votes you make with your shares are ignored). [1] The stock certificate doesn't count; that's a representation of the property, not the property itself.

And here I thought a stock was a tiny piece of the company. And if you had all the stock, then you had all the company...

The preferred example would be futures, and oddly enough, something I also think is a scam.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#143

Post by SilasX »

ThePherocity wrote: post #142
SilasX wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example is stock ownership, i.e. partial, tradeable ownership of a venture. No, you can't hold it in your hands[1], but people understand that it's property in all the relevant senses and can be meaningfully said to be "stolen" (e.g., if the votes you make with your shares are ignored). [1] The stock certificate doesn't count; that's a representation of the property, not the property itself.

And here I thought a stock was a tiny piece of the company. And if you had all the stock, then you had all the company... The preferred example would be futures, and oddly enough, something I also think is a scam.

It certainly is "a tiny piece of the company", at an appropriate level of abstraction. Expand it out to something more specific and you get that it's "right to cast a certain number of votes in determining who is allowed to manage (act as steward of) the company's assets and other major decisions, and to some proportion of the money paid out as dividends or when the company is bought out".

Somebody who owns their own company can be thought of as equivalently having 100% of its stock.

Don't see what's "a scam" about it, but I'd love to hear your thorough analysis on the matter.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#144

Post by mitchty »

jcromartie wrote: post #50
jere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to respond by playing devil's advocate and defending Ric and Uniloc. But a quick glance at their site proves you absolutely right. Here are some gems: Uniloc's surprising honesty: >And it fits our straightforward development model. Look at many ideas. Pick an outstanding one. Patent it. Commercialize it. Reap the rewards. Uniloc's vast knowledge of technology: >After all, Bell Labs did develop some fairly…

Hah. Someone who thinks UNIX is a programming language is obviously not intimately involved with building real technology.

I find it odd that lawyers, who use language to such an exacting degree they have effectively created their own dialect of English, have so much factually wrong information written on their own site.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#145

Post by anamax »

DougBTX wrote: post #132
anamax wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are different punishments for patent infringement with and without intent, so by definition you can have patent infringement without intent. Nope. There's just a more serious penalty when you continue after being informed.

Here's the section from UK law, you could look up a similar section in your jurisdiction: when awarding damages ... take into account the following – (a) whether at the date of infringement the defendant or defender knew, or had reasonable grounds to know, that he was infringing the patent ... (That's paragraph 62 (3)(a) from http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf ) Seems quite clear cut. Could you explain what you…

> Could you explain what you understand by "intent"?

Did you intend to use a technique? Did you intend to use it without permission. Note that the latter doesn't require knowledge that permission was required.

As to treble damages after being informed, that's an extra hammer, sort of like "you had a chance to clean up your act".

> Do you think you can have intent to infringe a particular patent without knowing that the particular patent exists?

Yes.

It's sort of like violating the law. You can be guilty of doing something with intent to do that thing even if you don't know which law is involved.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#146

Post by DougBTX »

anamax wrote: post #145
DougBTX wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the section from UK law, you could look up a similar section in your jurisdiction: when awarding damages ... take into account the following – (a) whether at the date of infringement the defendant or defender knew, or had reasonable grounds to know, that he was infringing the patent ... (That's paragraph 62 (3)(a) from http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf ) Seems quite clear cut. Could you explain what you…

> Could you explain what you understand by "intent"? Did you intend to use a technique? Did you intend to use it without permission. Note that the latter doesn't require knowledge that permission was required. As to treble damages after being informed, that's an extra hammer, sort of like "you had a chance to clean up your act". > Do you think you can have intent to infringe a particular patent without knowing that t…

Did you intend to use a technique?

That isn't the question I'm considering, which is where the apparent disagreement comes from. Someone can intend to use a technique, while not intending to infringe a patent. It is infringing the patent which brings legal problems.

You can be guilty of doing something with intent to do that thing even if you don't know which law is involved.

In that case, yes, you'd have intent to do that thing, but no, you would not have intent to break the law.

The extra penalty is being applied to intent to break the law, to do that you need to know about the law. From the perspective of the person breaking the law, they think they are innocent. They don't intend to be guilty. (Even if they actually are guilty.)

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#147

Post by anamax »

DougBTX wrote: post #146
anamax wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you explain what you understand by "intent"? Did you intend to use a technique? Did you intend to use it without permission. Note that the latter doesn't require knowledge that permission was required. As to treble damages after being informed, that's an extra hammer, sort of like "you had a chance to clean up your act". > Do you think you can have intent to infringe a particular patent without knowing that t…

Did you intend to use a technique? That isn't the question I'm considering, which is where the apparent disagreement comes from. Someone can intend to use a technique, while not intending to infringe a patent. It is infringing the patent which brings legal problems. You can be guilty of doing something with intent to do that thing even if you don't know which law is involved. In that case, yes, you'd have intent to d…

> Someone can intend to use a technique, while not intending to infringe a patent.

I understand where you're trying to go, but, as with the criminal law situation, you're trying to reward ignorance.

Post reply on HN