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

Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 285 posts

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#241

Post by Bartweiss »

logicallee wrote: post #227
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the plain-and-simple risk that lawyers at a firm I've handed the keys to know a lot about my company. That they may use this to profit against me, in a personal capacity, is all kinds of wrong. It's akin to an investment firm, doing confidential diligence on Company X, having an employee, who may or may not have been on the diligence team, run out and start a hedge fund that shorts Company X. It's not, b…

>It's not, by itself, necessarily unethical. can you explain this line? I was shocked to read it after your first paragraph and I can't imagine why you wrote it.

I believe that's about "who may or may not have been on the diligence team". It's not inherently unethical, because the investment firm employee starting the hedge fund may not actually have any secret knowledge.

But it's deeply alarming, because it's very possible (and hard to confirm) that they do have secret knowledge, so that practice is generally illegal even when it's not unethical.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#242

Post by bluGill »

zephyrppt wrote: post #182
URSpider94 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering. An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step. A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.

You're partially correct. Algorithms can't be patented. However, in practice, patent drafters work around this by adding phrases such as "A memory with computer readable instructions to [Insert Algorithm]" to turn the algorithm into an invented product. The bottom line is that the invention is the memory and the processor system whose novelty is that it includes instructions which implement the particular steps of th…

Anything you can do in software I can do with a set of hydraulic value). Your software will be faster (a video game on my valves will take several lifetimes to display the opening), but it will work (until something leaks). thus you can translate your program to hydraulics and it is patentable.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#243

Post by bluGill »

moomin wrote: post #228
lightlyused wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be kidding, Harry Potter is nothing like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, unless you consider magical candy to be the most important part of the story. :)

Philosopher's Stone has quite a few direct correspondences. The letter/golden ticket, the factory/Hogwarts (I could go on, but it would require me to reread it, not that that would be a bad thing). The unjustly discriminated against kid is another Dahl trope (although not one in CF per se). And more generally, the style is very similar. Beyond the first book it diverges, however.

Copyright considers things a unique work if less than something like 10% is copied. Harry Potter is in no danger. Even changing the golden ticket to a letter is enough to get around infringement there.

Of course consult a lawyer if the 10% figure above it important to your copy - there are lots of details that I don't know.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#244

Post by rhino369 »

lkbm wrote: post #149
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that algorithms and math are explicitly forbidden from being patented. This is why most software patents include some sort of clause specifying that the work is done using a computer. The patent office has simply done a lousy job when it comes to software patents.

I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much. So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?

>So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?

That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#245

Post by TheCoelacanth »

notyourday wrote: post #138
Bartweiss wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be a lot of that at play in white-shoe firms. Perhaps less so now than when those positions were guaranteed for life, but some of the highest-powered lawyers I've known didn't have much intuitive sense that they were actually affecting people.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of reality in legal profession. It is somewhat akin to 18th and 19th century conflicts - two armies line up against each other and both sides shoot. Strangely even though the last man standing won the decorum mattered. That is until someone had a brilliant idea to shoot from the laying down position. Or from the bushes. Or without wearing uniforms.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of 18th and 19th century infantry tactics to say that they fought that way out of a sense of decorum and that no one had the idea of using concealment or cover.

They fought in massed formations because it actually was the most effective way of fighting with the technology of the time. Infantry troops that strayed too far from their formations were extremely vulnerable to attack by more mobile cavalry troops. It was only in massed formations that they were able to effectively repel cavalry attacks.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#246

Post by logfromblammo »

Hermel wrote: post #99
MatthewWilkes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright covers implementations, not ideas. I have no moral objection to truly novel inventions in computer science being protected by patents. An innovative search algorithm, a compression scheme, etc. Its shit when MP3s and GIFs were encumbered, but they were genuine inventions whose sharing publicly genuinely advanced the public good. The kind the patent trolls use are not innovative in the same way. We need a st…

I'm pretty sure that if you rewrote Harry Potter from scratch with new names and wording (redoing the implementation) and published that, you would still get in trouble. So copyright is somewhat broader than you think.

The literary characters and other proper nouns in a series may be covered by trademark. Copyright only covers the specific expression of the text. Patent, of course, does not apply to fiction plots.

So if you scrupulously avoided character names and quotes from the original work, you can indeed rewrite the same plot and story arcs in your own words, and not be in conflict with the law.

That will be of no solace when lawyers for the Harry Potter media empire pursue you anyway. Just as you did not break the law in a technical, letter-of-the-law sense, so is it also possible for an entity with great wealth to make someone with lesser wealth miserable, without breaking the law.

It is far easier to rip off a nobody, or someone who is dead. For instance, rewrite Amber without Corwin or Merlin in it; make superficial modifications to all named characters and locations. Maybe you get some fans that never read the original; maybe you get some that did read it, and like your version better.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#247

Post by chris_wot »

arkh wrote: post #197
mendelk wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talked to an Oracle lawyer a few months ago, and told him their lawsuit just makes Oracle look bad. The lawyer was dismissive, and tried to explain how it's silly how people take lawsuits personally, and talked about how layers _understand_ that lawsuits aren't personal, and that they are still friends outside the court. I'm sure a lawyer can "understand" how lawsuits aren't actually something personal at all, but…

> “The personal, as everyone’s so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here – it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide from under…

Yup, I've had to do that. I've basically not given in, and have slowly but surely ground down the people who should have been investigating and dealing with my issues. I'll succeed from sheer bloody mindedness.

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#248

Post by chris_wot »

rhino369 wrote: post #244
lkbm wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much. So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?

>So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding? That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.

That's the Alice case, which is described here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Inte...

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#249

Post by chris_wot »

zephyrppt wrote: post #182
URSpider94 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering. An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step. A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.

You're partially correct. Algorithms can't be patented. However, in practice, patent drafters work around this by adding phrases such as "A memory with computer readable instructions to [Insert Algorithm]" to turn the algorithm into an invented product. The bottom line is that the invention is the memory and the processor system whose novelty is that it includes instructions which implement the particular steps of th…

It's gotten harder to do this since Alice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Inte...

Re: Cloudflare’s fight with a “patent troll” could alter the game

#250

Post by moomin »

bluGill wrote: post #243
moomin wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosopher's Stone has quite a few direct correspondences. The letter/golden ticket, the factory/Hogwarts (I could go on, but it would require me to reread it, not that that would be a bad thing). The unjustly discriminated against kid is another Dahl trope (although not one in CF per se). And more generally, the style is very similar. Beyond the first book it diverges, however.

Copyright considers things a unique work if less than something like 10% is copied. Harry Potter is in no danger. Even changing the golden ticket to a letter is enough to get around infringement there. Of course consult a lawyer if the 10% figure above it important to your copy - there are lots of details that I don't know.

I only felt the need to establish enough similarity to demonstrate that the joke was funny, not so much the Dahl estate could take Rowling's hard-earned money. :)
Post reply on HN