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

Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#31

Post by drgath »

nickpinkston wrote: post #26
dangrossman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not very applicable since this isn't a software patent.

Not sure technically, but software patents are a subset of methods patents (which I'm guessing this is), but at least very similar to the point where I think it's very applicable to this. The discussion needs to keep going - that petition was a great success, but I'm doubtful that the administration dares to talk about it in anything other than platitudes.

The definition of "software patent" is about as misused as "impeachment" or "HTML5". Ending software patents fixes very little with what is wrong with the patent industry because most of what people assume are software patents, likely aren't. Take the Lodesys patent debate for example, at least one of those (#7,222,078) wouldn't be considered a "software patent". PG says Amazon's 1-click checkout patent isn't a "software patent" (http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html). Software patents are not the issue.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#32

Post by drzaiusapelord »

rkalla wrote: post #8

I am going to take an unpopular stance here... I think. When patents are enforced by big legal entities, we all scream foul, "Patents are meant to protect the little guy, not make lawyers rich!" Now we have a musician (a "little guy") suing a much loved successful startup... and we are still screaming, but instead of "Stop the lawyers!" we are yelling "Stop the hipster artists!" (at least lhnn was). If this musician…

>"Patents are meant to protect the little guy, not make lawyers rich!"

No. I'm against patents because ideas shouldn't be owned, especially obvious ideas. Patents have never, ever served the little guy. That's pro-IP propaganda and at best a 17th century idea that never panned out.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#33

Post by iamdave »

farlington wrote: post #23
iamdave wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been unpopular almost every time I've asked it: Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same…

I don't know if I can answer your question, but I could maybe clarify what I think are a few misconceptions. The first misconception is that artists are generally opposed to new revenue models. Artists, designers, craftspeople have absolutely embraced new revenue models, and the number of artists, graphic designers, fashion designers, video artists, industrial designers, et al. using sites like kickstarter and etsy,…

Thanks for the response, some viewpoints there that I did not consider (mainly due to my own ignorance as someone not entirely connected to the design and art communities). One thing you mentioned I've never really been able to wrap my head around:

But the work that comes out of them isn't generally great, and the clients that use them are generally the kind of clients nobody wants: fussy, demanding, unimaginative and cheap. Clients who probably wouldn't be paying for design services otherwise. It still costs money to get good work. That's what it's really about: protecting the value of the work you do professionally.

Why is this the concern of anyone but the person doing the work and the client receiving it? Granted, on the whole, by-and-large it's not anything that's going to destroy the creative design industry or invalidate a beautifully composed ad campaign (for example) but it is something that I've heard before.

"Well the work produced isn't that great, these designs sometimes suck".

At the end of the day, if the end goal is to please the client, and the client is pleased with what they have, does it matter if it came from 99designs or if it were produced by Sterling-Cooper?

I suppose the same can be said for spec-work. If the producer of a product/service/design understands that they are working potentially for free to win a contract, who's business is that but their own and the clients? It seems like there might be a disconnect in that if your goal is to maximize output and bring in a respectable wage-say as a freelancer-that you'll go for clients who are willing to negotiate fair terms, and compensate you a decent wage. Instead, what I see (and this is just anecdotal observation) is people vilifying designers who choose to work on spec.

I might be missing the point entirely, so take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#34

Post by iamdave »

ralphsaunders wrote: post #16
iamdave wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been unpopular almost every time I've asked it: Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same…

Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross. 99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view…

* There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.*

I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are?

I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for the client) manner should mean the demonizing of an industry that allows a company to pick what they want, considering they're paying for it to represent their brand.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#35

Post by jonathanjaeger »

enjalot wrote: post #9
jonathanjaeger wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patent complaining aside, that quote is off too. The point of Kickstarter is not to ask for handouts, but to offer incentives/rewards/pre-orders based on the amount you donate. If you don't like what you get for what you pay or donate, then choose a different tier or don't give any money.

Or you want to see something happen but you only want to donate if everyone else does. They hack the tragedy of the commons, and it's been enough for me to support a couple projects.

Good point. A lot of people come to Kickstarter because of Kickstarter and not because they want to donate to a friend who linked to their project from elsewhere.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#37

Post by nickolai »

mahcode wrote: post #36

When will the USPTO put a stop on such BS patents, seriously! One day we will run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent... and then what? Patents are meant to encourage entrepreneurship... not fund court rooms and judges' salaries.

>One day we will run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent... and then what?

Then a countdown to the expiration of the last patent will start.

And then we will enter an era of freedom of innovation. You will be free to take any design you like and improve on it without fear of being sued into oblivion if your design sees any kind of success.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#38

Post by pavel_lishin »

dynamichype wrote: post #14
sixtofour wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal details lead to personal relationships, which then can lead to innocents being hurt. Not cool.

Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period before they learn that they should avoid relationships with patent trolls for the same collateral risk reasons they avoid befriending gang members, child-molesters, and other anti-socials.

> Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period

Oh, well, if we won't be hurting them forever, that's fine then.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#39

Post by ralphsaunders »

iamdave wrote: post #34
ralphsaunders wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross. 99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view…

* There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.* I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are? I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for th…

I guess the first reason that springs to mind is that spec work is of poor quality. Most designers - I can't speak for artists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they shared a similar sentiment - look at products and think about how they could be improved. To see a company not only facilitating poor quality work, but for it to also be pleased with the result is rather... depressing, really.

Another is that encouraging people to work for free is rather questionable. Arguably it's preying on people who might be rather desperate for money when their time would be better invested in other things.

But most of all, is that the term 'designer' now includes people who produce that poor standard of work as well as, for example, the very talented people who work at Apple. It cheapens the term, and I think that's a lot of the reason you see new job titles appearing regularly from within the industry - a "user experience" designer didn't really exist 2 years ago and it basically means "generalist" or "designer".

A lot of clients evaluate design based on aesthetics, which is obviously only half of the solution. It can be very difficult to differentiate yourself from the 'designers' who churn out lots of ill thought through work, especially if you're new in the industry and you don't have lots of client experience to write about.

Re: Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

#40

Post by dynamichype »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #38
dynamichype wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period before they learn that they should avoid relationships with patent trolls for the same collateral risk reasons they avoid befriending gang members, child-molesters, and other anti-socials.

> Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period Oh, well, if we won't be hurting them forever, that's fine then.

One of the arguments made against repealing Jim Crow laws was the harm that would come to business owners in terms of infrastructure and other spending. There were many such businesses whose owners were not racist but who had invested in locations and buildings out of innocent compliance with the law and the demographic business climate it created. The judicial system makes accomodations for parenthood but it does not refuse to punish parents despite the fact that it is absolutely certain that such punishments will be detrimental to the child. By definition, disruptive social change is disruptive and punishment is punative. Surely that no collatoral innocents be harmed ever is too high a standard that favors both the status quo and protects bad actors?
Post reply on HN