PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc) • Hacker News Board

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#41

Post by pg » Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 10:42 PM UTC

bayareaguy wrote: post #20

garbowza wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html Btw, your writer analogy is a poor one, since prior art exists for that story line and thus it would not be patentable. There are also industries that would collapse without patents (pharmaceuticals for one).

I assume pg is referring to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6117964.html when he writes The one example I've found is, embarrassingly enough, Yahoo, which filed a patent suit against a gaming startup called Xfire in 2005. Xfire doesn't seem to be a very big deal, and it's hard to say why Yahoo felt threatened. Xfire's VP of engineering had worked at Yahoo on similar stuff-- in fact, he was listed as an inventor on the p…

What makes you think there's a very real chance of that? Microsoft already has patents on practically everything to do with software. What difference has it made?

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#42

Post by pg » Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 10:55 PM UTC

ardit33 wrote: post #12

Software Patents are a sham. Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. I wonder what would be if a writer could patent story lines: "It is like a like a novelist, patenting all action thrillers, that involve a guy saving a girl, who is kidnaped by the bad guys. Watch out, any other books that have a bad guy kidnaping the girl, can be infringing this patent." There are many industries that flourish without the…

Software should be copyrighted, but not patented.

So physical stuff like valves can be patented, but not software? That seems arbitrary. After all, it's usually the design of the valve that contains the invention. What difference does it make if you print one out? If you mean "nothing should be patented," just say that. One could make a case for that argument. But there's nothing special about software.

How did we end up in this mess?

What evidence do you have that we're in a mess? Have you ever been prevented from doing something you wanted to because of patents?

The fact is, for all the noise people make about them, software patents just don't matter much. Large companies accumulate patent portfolios to protect themselves against patent suits. Startups file for them because investors and acquirers are impressed by them. But they don't decide which startups win.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#43

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 10:57 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #42

ardit33 wrote: post #12

Software Patents are a sham. Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. I wonder what would be if a writer could patent story lines: "It is like a like a novelist, patenting all action thrillers, that involve a guy saving a girl, who is kidnaped by the bad guys. Watch out, any other books that have a bad guy kidnaping the girl, can be infringing this patent." There are many industries that flourish without the…

Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. So physical stuff like valves can be patented, but not software? That seems arbitrary. After all, it's usually the design of the valve that contains the invention. What difference does it make if you print one out? If you mean "nothing should be patented," just say that. One could make a case for that argument. But there's nothing special about software. How did we en…

[deleted]

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#44

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 10:59 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #43

pg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. So physical stuff like valves can be patented, but not software? That seems arbitrary. After all, it's usually the design of the valve that contains the invention. What difference does it make if you print one out? If you mean "nothing should be patented," just say that. One could make a case for that argument. But there's nothing special about software. How did we en…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#45

Post by bayareaguy » Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 11:39 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #42

ardit33 wrote: post #12

Software Patents are a sham. Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. I wonder what would be if a writer could patent story lines: "It is like a like a novelist, patenting all action thrillers, that involve a guy saving a girl, who is kidnaped by the bad guys. Watch out, any other books that have a bad guy kidnaping the girl, can be infringing this patent." There are many industries that flourish without the…

Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. So physical stuff like valves can be patented, but not software? That seems arbitrary. After all, it's usually the design of the valve that contains the invention. What difference does it make if you print one out? If you mean "nothing should be patented," just say that. One could make a case for that argument. But there's nothing special about software. How did we en…

Have you ever been prevented from doing something you wanted to because of patents?

I've had to take software out of production and replace it with non-infringing software.

What evidence do you have that we're in a mess?

EOLAS v Microsoft, Amazon v Barnes&Noble, Sun v NetApp..

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#46

Post by bayareaguy » Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 11:46 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #41

bayareaguy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume pg is referring to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6117964.html when he writes The one example I've found is, embarrassingly enough, Yahoo, which filed a patent suit against a gaming startup called Xfire in 2005. Xfire doesn't seem to be a very big deal, and it's hard to say why Yahoo felt threatened. Xfire's VP of engineering had worked at Yahoo on similar stuff-- in fact, he was listed as an inventor on the p…

What makes you think there's a very real chance of that? Microsoft already has patents on practically everything to do with software. What difference has it made?

Well... your own essay suggested that the motivation in Yahoo v Xfire was personal.

If someone comes to YC with an idea you like but is incumbered by a technology and/or business model that you know infringes on specific patents held by a company like Microsoft, do you just fund them anyways and tell them it doesn't matter?

Are you saying it would have made no difference to Yahoo if Microsoft somehow patented the continuation-server idea Viaweb depends on before you did?

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#47

Post by bayareaguy » Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 11:56 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #41

bayareaguy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume pg is referring to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6117964.html when he writes The one example I've found is, embarrassingly enough, Yahoo, which filed a patent suit against a gaming startup called Xfire in 2005. Xfire doesn't seem to be a very big deal, and it's hard to say why Yahoo felt threatened. Xfire's VP of engineering had worked at Yahoo on similar stuff-- in fact, he was listed as an inventor on the p…

What makes you think there's a very real chance of that? Microsoft already has patents on practically everything to do with software. What difference has it made?

Here are some more lawsuits, some of which involved injunctions.

Tivo v Dish - http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1201779834291

Forgent v Audiovox, ePlus v Ariba, Immersion v Sony/Microsoft, EMC v HP, USA Video v Movielink, BroadVision v Art Technology, Electronics for Imaging vs everbody .... http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=492018

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#48

Post by pg » Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 12:23 AM UTC

bayareaguy wrote: post #45

pg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. So physical stuff like valves can be patented, but not software? That seems arbitrary. After all, it's usually the design of the valve that contains the invention. What difference does it make if you print one out? If you mean "nothing should be patented," just say that. One could make a case for that argument. But there's nothing special about software. How did we en…

Have you ever been prevented from doing something you wanted to because of patents? I've had to take software out of production and replace it with non-infringing software. What evidence do you have that we're in a mess? EOLAS v Microsoft, Amazon v Barnes&Noble, Sun v NetApp..

Notice in all three cases the guys on the receiving end of the patent suit were big companies. Big companies have lots of money, so they get sued over patents, and when people slip and fall in the parking lots, and when they fire people. Big companies getting sued over something doesn't mean it's an actual problem.

If you don't mind my asking, where were you working when you had to replace this software?

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#49

Post by pg » Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 12:30 AM UTC

anaphoric wrote: post #27

nickb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sham or not, they're a reality and we have to deal with it. Just ignoring them is not going to solve anything. >How did we end up in this mess? Politics, money and special interest is a dangerous confluence.

Actually just ignoring it is probably the best thing to do.

That's what we advise startups, at least about software patents. If you've developed something very novel, it doesn't hurt to file a provisional patent application. But don't spend a lot of time on it, or waste any time worrying about other people's patents. That's not what makes startups win or lose.

Re: PG's patent on Continuation Based Web Servers (as used by Arc, Seaside etc)

#50

Post by pg » Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 12:40 AM UTC

bayareaguy wrote: post #46

pg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think there's a very real chance of that? Microsoft already has patents on practically everything to do with software. What difference has it made?

Well... your own essay suggested that the motivation in Yahoo v Xfire was personal. If someone comes to YC with an idea you like but is incumbered by a technology and/or business model that you know infringes on specific patents held by a company like Microsoft, do you just fund them anyways and tell them it doesn't matter? Are you saying it would have made no difference to Yahoo if Microsoft somehow patented the con…

Yes, we completely ignore patent questions in funding decisions. So do most software investors.

And yes, it would have made no difference to Yahoo. As far as I know, they didn't do any patent searches prior to acquiring us. In fact, I've never heard of patents torpedoing an acquisition. Acquirers (rightly) have a fatalistic attitude to patents.

Curiously enough, Yahoo did get sued by a patent troll over Viaweb. It was after my time, but it was something to do with shopping carts. A totally bogus claim, but I believe Yahoo settled, because they were able to pay them out of the money they'd held in escrow for us. (We were not that unhappy though, because the money held in escrow had increased something like 15x.)