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

Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 426 posts

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#331

Post by rainsford »

creeble wrote: post #143

No mention of Cloudflare’s own large portfolio of software patents. Wonder when they’ll start enforcing their patent on CNAME flattening, for example: https://patents.justia.com/patent/11159479 Edit; clarity

I recognize my position is far from airtight, but I'm honestly way, way less bothered by the fact that companies like Cloudflare have a large patent portfolio simply because they actually build useful stuff related to their patents.

There is a robust debate to be had on the validity of obvious or generic software patents that only questionably constitute legitimate "invention", but that's almost entirely separate from the problem of the bottom feeding pond scum that collect patents for no other reason than to attempt to enrich themselves via parasitic extraction from people who had similar ideas but actually used them to create something useful. The former might be trying to get exclusivity from something that anyone could have come up with, but at least their idea is useful to someone. The latter brings nothing of value to anyone except maybe themselves, and arguably negative value to everyone else.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#332

Post by jedberg »

dataflow wrote: post #322
Calavar wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> company B should get MAJOR financial rewards from BOTH company A and the patent office, on the order of 10x+ what they spent on their defence By "the patent office" you mean taxpayers, right? Because we're the ones who foot the bill for any judgement against the government. I can't see any situation where individual patent clerks would be held accountable. First, it goes against established case law regarding civil…

> By "the patent office" you mean taxpayers, right? Because we're the ones who foot the bill for any judgement against the government. I think they meant the patent office should cover that from fees, not from taxpayers.

Then the fees would be so high only the biggest companies could afford to file patents.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#333

Post by jedberg »

yashap wrote: post #175

Nice to see Cloudflare fighting the good fight, but patent trolls aren’t the only issue with software patents. A major issue that people talk about way less is well funded/large companies getting bullshit patents, and using them to sue their small startup competitors into the ground. It doesn’t even matter if they win - when a company with billions in the bank sues a company with millions in the bank, the small compa…

> patent clerks aren’t actually subject matter experts in the field

This is sometimes true, but also isn't super relevant. The patent office contracts out to experts to help them evaluate a patent. My friend worked as one of these contractors. He would get patents in his field of expertise in which he holds a PhD and had 15 years of work experience, and then write a report and do the prior art searches. He would then send his report back to the patent clerk.

The reason you get BS patents is because they only give the clerk a small amount of time to make a decision, so they have to work with whatever info they have -- they don't have time to seek out additional information.

The patent office needs a lot more funding if you want it to be effective.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#334

Post by thereisnospork »

rakoo wrote: post #301
adrr wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you spend billions($2.5 billion being average) inventing a new drug and anyone should be allowed to copy and sell it? That would foster innovation and not kill pharmaceutical market?

We need a pharmaceutical library, not a pharmaceutical market. Research doesn't cost $2.5 billion, lobbying does.

Let's make a bet then, shall we?

I'll wire you 2.6billion (the extra 0.1 for your trouble) in exchange for a cure for alzheimers deliverable 5 years from now against 5 billion if you can't deliver. Should be an easy 100million+ for you.

Lmk once you have your side in escrow.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#335

Post by hot_gril »

greyface- wrote: post #326
hot_gril wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might reduce the effectiveness of this strategy.

How would a commitment to not use their patent portfolio offensively prevent them from effectively using it defensively?

For the commitment to be meaningful at all, it has to be partially binding, which could be exploited. And a totally nonbinding one could just as easily be given by a patent troll.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#336

Post by bhaney »

yashap wrote: post #175

Nice to see Cloudflare fighting the good fight, but patent trolls aren’t the only issue with software patents. A major issue that people talk about way less is well funded/large companies getting bullshit patents, and using them to sue their small startup competitors into the ground. It doesn’t even matter if they win - when a company with billions in the bank sues a company with millions in the bank, the small compa…

> patent trolls aren’t the only issue with software patents. A major issue that people talk about way less is well funded/large companies getting bullshit patents, and using them to sue their small startup competitors into the ground

Those companies are patent trolls, not a separate issue. They don't stop being patent trolls just because they're large and well known.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#337

Post by IanCal »

balderdash wrote: post #270
IanCal wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've wondered about - you specify a value and pay a tax accordingly. Anyone is then able to buy it from you for that price. Have some short term part for free, then fees scale over time.

It sounds nice in principal but I think it’s not so easy in practice, if I asked you what’s your car worth you probably say something along the lines of well it would cost x to replace it, or I paid y for it, or I could sell it for z on eBay (all three different prices) but if you then said that well whatever price you say someone can buy your car for and you’re stuck with without a car while you go figure out replac…

The value to me would be the replacement plus hassle value.

There's clearly values I'd easily accept, you offer me a hundred grand for my car and you can take it whenever you want.

Now for regular items like a car this would be hard. How do I value it and how do I not get caught out when second hand sales spike and I don't follow the markets?

But we're not talking about everyone's car. We're talking about asking the state to forbid others to make or build certain things (yes I know it's more detailed but you get the meaning).

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#338

Post by IanCal »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #275
IanCal wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've wondered about - you specify a value and pay a tax accordingly. Anyone is then able to buy it from you for that price. Have some short term part for free, then fees scale over time.

This creates a clear and obvious arbitrage opportunity that finance people on Wall Street will exploit almost instantly.

Ok? It results in them paying taxes while they hold it, to the value they ascribe to it. If they say it's higher than the original buyer, we get more in tax revenue

Or have I misunderstood your point?

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#339

Post by remram »

hot_gril wrote: post #335
greyface- wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a commitment to not use their patent portfolio offensively prevent them from effectively using it defensively?

For the commitment to be meaningful at all, it has to be partially binding, which could be exploited. And a totally nonbinding one could just as easily be given by a patent troll.

> For the commitment to be meaningful at all, it has to be partially binding

A non-binding and less-meaningful commitment would still be something. They could easily start there and they have not.

Re: Cloudflare defeats patent troll Sable at trial

#340

Post by hot_gril »

remram wrote: post #339
hot_gril wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the commitment to be meaningful at all, it has to be partially binding, which could be exploited. And a totally nonbinding one could just as easily be given by a patent troll.

> For the commitment to be meaningful at all, it has to be partially binding A non-binding and less-meaningful commitment would still be something. They could easily start there and they have not.

I don't see what they'd gain from that. Also, could calling your own patents "defensive" be seen as admission that they're bogus?
Post reply on HN