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

Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#41

Post by willheim »

Who cares? It sounds big and scary and really bad... especially to us start-up types but I'd bet that there is nothing that hasn't been patented or could be deemed to be covered by a patent that's been put out on the web.

Seriously, start looking through the patents filed on Google (I started with one of these Paul Allen ones, then moved on to others filed by others but which were cited) and came to the conclusion that this is all ridiculous.

Here we see that Apple could possibly sue anyone for invoking the "mouseover" or "hover" events: http://www.google.com/patents?id=mPYiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...

While I wholeheartedly agree with protecting IP, to me that is more of a copyright issue (not ripping off code) rather than ideas.

Ultimately what it means for us is: Go forth and code. Create whatever you want and ignore the patents out there. If you are successful, and a patent troll sues you, you can come to an agreement (license or otherwise). Really, no worries here.

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#44

Post by vrruiz »

dwynings wrote: post #25
protomyth wrote: post #6

It would be really cool if mainstream media would link to the patents the article talks about because their description is horrible.

Patents are referenced here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://online.wsj.com/pub... U.S. PATENT NO. 6,263,507 U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,682 U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314 U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652

- 6,263,507: Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audiovisual data http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

- 6,034,652: Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...

- 6,788,314: Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...

- 6,757,682: Alerting users to items of current interest http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#45

Post by d2viant »

maukdaddy wrote: post #24
uptown wrote: post #4

So he's suing Apple, Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube.

Amazon.com is missing. Also missing are any Seattle-based companies.

Paul Allen owns the entire Vulcan group. One division of that, Vulcan Real Estate, owns and is developing all the brand new buildings on South Lake Union in Seattle that Amazon is now leasing out for their new campus.

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#46

Post by mhd »

sandipagr wrote: post #40
metamemetics wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that really true? Yes. Or more precisely because clothes and food are too "utilitarian". "Lessons from fashion's free culture" http://ca.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion... "Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley."

thanks for the link. That was very interesting. It's really amazing how the entire fashion industry even without any sort of protection is running well.

While the fashions themselves aren't protected, the names of the labels etc. are trademarked. That's why you're seeing the Gucci and Dolce & Gabbana names on everything. And the Luis Vuitton luggage pattern contains their logo. A lot of stuff produced is basically nothing but a vehicle for the logo itself, without much fashion/innovation around it.

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#47

Post by SoftwareMaven »

ssp wrote: post #21
jacquesm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sad to see him become a Patent troll. Yes, quite. Paul Allen had an excellent reputation up to this point. He always struck me as the one with the interesting projects, such as backing Burt Rutan. > Some of them will surely fight back. all of them will fight back.

Maybe he is trying to destroy the patent system. If you have valid patents that read on various valuable products, and you can bank roll a credible law suit asking for injunctions and not accepting any other kind of relief , that might create enough chaos to get the attention of law makers.

The fact that he is leaving out Microsoft and Amazon says to me that he is exactly what he appears to be: a complete troll.

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#48

Post by nooneelse »

_delirium wrote: post #20
jsz0 wrote: post #9

"We recognize that innovation has a value, and patents are the way to protect that." Innovation has no value to the public if you don't produce and ship a good product. In my opinion the company that actually ships something should always have the upper hand because it's good for consumers. Patent reform should follow a use-it-or-lose-it model. If a company comes up with an innovative idea, ships a product, and that…

I mostly agree, but patents were partly intended to protect small-fry scientists/inventors who came up with good ideas that they couldn't necessarily commercialize themselves, by providing a legal mechanism to keep manufacturers from just ripping off the idea as they shopped it around. It makes more sense when it's not a portfolio company holding hundreds of patents, though, and when the inventions are genuine breakt…

I agree that a straight "use it or loose it" is too harsh... how about a mechanism for forced licensing with the fee based with upon some reasonable criteria, including but not limited to attempts to use the patient well? Oh wait... I forgot this is the USA, can't assume a competent ability to set up good bureaucracy with fair rules.

Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents

#50

Post by mjgoins »

d2viant wrote: post #45
maukdaddy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon.com is missing. Also missing are any Seattle-based companies.

Paul Allen owns the entire Vulcan group. One division of that, Vulcan Real Estate, owns and is developing all the brand new buildings on South Lake Union in Seattle that Amazon is now leasing out for their new campus.

No, no, you don't understand. Amazon and Microsoft didn't violate any of his patents. Thats why he's not suing them.
Post reply on HN