Notch knocking down a strawman frontpages on HN.
Even experts get it wrong
21–30 of 147 posts
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#22I keep on hearing about the Eastern Texas courts that are consistently plaintiff friendly. Just seems messed up that you could sue someone wherever it's most convenient for you.
This American Life did a show recently (in the past year) about patent trolls (focusing on Intellectual Ventures):
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...
Their explanation of the venue choice was that the other federal courts were choked with drug-related cases and going to East Texas was a way to get a speedier trial.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#23> Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented and letting you have a fair shot at making a living from it. Patents are quite explicitly not there to stop people "stealing a technology". You can already do this by keeping your invention secret (which many jurisdictions grant some form of protection). The purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to publicly disclose their inventions so that…
I keep hearing this "purpose of patents", and while it's a common belief today, I don't know that it really fits in with what historically has been the purpose of patents. Much 19th century writing on patents and intellectual property saw them as fundamental property rights that protect the fruits of one's labor.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#24Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. This is the problem I've always had with patents, but I've never been able to articulate it before.
Patent infringement is a civil matter, and a variety of those don't require intent. Criminal cases are much more likely to require intent, though there are plenty that don't.
IANAL, so isn't one of the counterparts to intent in law negligence?
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#25Where is the expert? Ric Richardson is not an attorney, let alone a patent attorney. Ric's comments are uninformed, and probably not worth responding to. [ http://ricrichardson.blogspot.co.uk/p/about-ric.html ]
I wonder when he's going to go after Microsoft for patent infringement: http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&dq=uniloc+...
He already did back in the 90s.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#26There needs to be a website or something to shame known patent and trolls AND THEIR ATTORNEYS.
Sounds like a great way to get sued by very litigious companies if you aren't nuanced in your approach.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Internet expert" == ! expert
"==!" === "Bad Javascript idiom you won't find in many other languages."
> Bad Javascript idiom you won't find in many other languages.
It's not an idiom, and identity tests exist in other languages. You may know them as "==" (Java), "is" (Python), "eq?" (Scheme) or "object.ReferenceEquals" (C#).
Now the syntax is ugly and this does not excuse the fucked up non-overridable equality, but aside from that `===` works pretty well in Javascript.
As opposed to PHP, which famously did manage to even fail implementing identity correctly[0].
It also has nothing to do with the comment you replied to, which uses `== !` (to operators, an equality to a negated operand)
[0] http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204433&ci...
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#28Where is the expert? Ric Richardson is not an attorney, let alone a patent attorney. Ric's comments are uninformed, and probably not worth responding to. [ http://ricrichardson.blogspot.co.uk/p/about-ric.html ]
The article on which Mr. Richardson is commenting also confuses copyright and trademark law.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
"==!" === "Bad Javascript idiom you won't find in many other languages."
> Bad Javascript idiom you won't find in many other languages. It's not an idiom, and identity tests exist in other languages. You may know them as "==" (Java), "is" (Python), "eq?" (Scheme) or "object.ReferenceEquals" (C#). Now the syntax is ugly and this does not excuse the fucked up non-overridable equality, but aside from that `===` works pretty well in Javascript. As opposed to PHP, which famously did manage to…
This is irrelevant, but it blows my mind that "[1] == [1]" returns False in JS.
Re: Even experts get it wrong
#30>And yet, the technology in question is a system that stops people from pirating their software and helps them make money. Well if you think it's so unfair, don't use the tech. Do something else. No one is forcing you to use the technology. Bullshit. Mojang isn't using Uniloc's tech. They're writing their own tech using a bloody obvious idea.
Exactly, my stance on software patents is that they do not necessarily cover the coder's method, it creates an entitlement to the result. Almost every software patent I've seen doesn't mention specific code, it just covers the result. Meaning no one can ever come up with a similar system without the threat of being sued for patent infringement. So, even if someone had a better way to make a similar system, they more than likely will get sued. "I have a patent that covers software that checks licenses over a network; therefore you can never make software that checks licenses over a network without paying me money." How does that allow for someone to do "something else"?