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

Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#41

Post by click170 »

jobu wrote: post #19
scott_s wrote: post #12

Planet Money did a great episode on this patent, using it to talk about the state of the patent system in general: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/31/187374157/episode-... It has interviews with the patent holder, and it's amazing to hear his perspective. (Which I do not agree with.)

They've also done two other great episodes on patents: 412 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-... 551 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/07/09/329895088/episode-... Side topic, but I really wish Planet Money would look into medical re-patenting. Growing up I needed albuterol inhalers occasionally and I remember them costing less than $10, but recently my kid needed one and it was $60 wit…

Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern.

Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#42

Post by BinaryIdiot »

leereeves wrote: post #10

> Personal Audio continues to seek patents related to podcasting. It's unfortunate that the Patent Office can't ban trolls who have abused the system.

> It's unfortunate that the Patent Office can't ban trolls who have abused the system.

I agree with you on one hand but on the other is it impossible for a person to reform and later want a patent to protect their new creation? I'd just like to see the whole system overhauled or maybe even removed in some ways.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#45

Post by alphapapa »

click170 wrote: post #41
jobu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've also done two other great episodes on patents: 412 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-... 551 - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/07/09/329895088/episode-... Side topic, but I really wish Planet Money would look into medical re-patenting. Growing up I needed albuterol inhalers occasionally and I remember them costing less than $10, but recently my kid needed one and it was $60 wit…

Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern. Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.

Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case.

> Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.

And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can." Or, "It's unreasonable to expect an oil company to do anything other than ship and sell as much oil as they can as cheaply as they can."

No. Companies, publicly traded or not, are not mindless automatons, inhumanly calculating the optimal methods to extract as much profit as possible, even though they do seem that way. Companies are comprised of people, people who are a part of the society in which their company does business. Therefore they have--should have--the responsibility to behave ethically to society, not merely their shareholders. And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live.

I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from, but it's 1) untrue, and 2) morally and ethically wrong, regardless of #1. Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#46

Post by cguess »

jheriko wrote: post #44

the USPTO is a laughing stock, they should consider some serious reform quickly or just being completely disbanded. they serve no valuable purpose other than to retard the whole of society for the future as far as i can tell...

The main reason it exists is to provide incentive for people to actually create things and to spend the money on R&D with a hope there will be a return. If I spend three years and $500,000 developing a new building material, I should be able to be protected from an employee of mine quitting and starting a new company doing the same thing from techniques he learned using my invention (for a certain period of time).

Software is a different beast, simply because the vagueness you can express in a software patent can be so general that it covers use cases almost retroactively.

Software patents should be extremely specific, regular patents work for the most part.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#47

Post by cma »

alphapapa wrote: post #45
click170 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern. Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.

Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can.…

>And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live.

They can be. Say there are 1000 equal shareholders in a company, and they make up .01% of society. If they do $10,000,000 in damage to society they discount that by .01%, and just need to earn $1,000 as a company, one dollar each, in exchange in order for it to be "rational".

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#48

Post by alphapapa »

cma wrote: post #47
alphapapa wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can.…

>And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live. They can be. Say there are 1000 equal shareholders in a company, and they make up .01% of society. If they do $10,000,000 in damage to society they discount that by .01%, and just need to earn $1,000 as a company, one dollar each, in exchange in order for…

That requires seeing everything as a matter of money. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents.

We are all poorer--as a society--when some people profit at others' suffering.

You are demonstrating precisely the problem mentality that I am pointing out. Please wake up.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#49

Post by angersock »

alphapapa wrote: post #45
click170 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly this leaves me wondering why we leave medicine to private companies when we have agreed as a society that public health is the governments concern. Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can.

Obviously "we" have not agreed that that is the case. > Its unreasonable to expect a publicly traded company to do anything other than chase profits the best way they can. And that attitude is why we can't have nice things. That would be what's known as "enabling." How about, "It's unreasonable to expect a beer company to do anything other than sell as much alcohol as they can, however they can, to whomever they can.…

And even besides that, shareholders' ultimate interests are not served if their companies behave in ways that are destructive to the societies in which they live.

Unless the destruction occurs outside of the realm (spatial or temporal) of the shareholders, in which case the destruction can rightfully be modeled as an externality and ignored.

I don't know where this idea that "companies are required or expected to make as much profit as legally possible" came from

Started with Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

This was somewhat superseded by Shlensky v. Wrigley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlensky_v._Wrigley

This in turn is arguably superseded by eBay v. Newmark:

http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/sp...

Please stop enabling this behavior by spreading this incorrect and just plain wrong idea.

It's more dangerous to assume that corporations can be held to task than it is to assume that they are amoral profit-seeking entities. Only in the former case are you unpleasantly surprised if you're wrong.

Re: Ruling from USPTO Invalidates All Claims Used to Threaten Podcasters

#50

Post by chris_wot »

billyvg wrote: post #28
sbov wrote: post #18

Any figures on how much this invalid patent costed people?

We'll probably never know, most people that settle with patent trolls have confidentiality agreements

Surely that would be invalidated along with the claim? Can you sue to reclaim your money?
Post reply on HN