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

Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#51

Post by losvedir »

MaysonL wrote: post #47

I wonder what would happen if patents had to be renewed each year, and the renewal fee doubled each year?

Wow, now there's a genuinely interesting idea I haven't heard before. It would prevent against patent trolls biding their time until someone profitably introduced something.

It's kind of a "put your money where your mouth is" type solution, which actually helps the little guy, too. I like it!

It doesn't help against granting stupid patents in the first place (e.g. Amazon's one click checkout), but limits their impact, I suppose.

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#52

Post by losvedir »

base wrote: post #10

One of the problems is that this companies don't have anything to loose by bringing these lawsuits. They just have to fill some papers electronically, pay a few hundred dollars and the other party have to loose thousands of dollars to protect itself.

In case you're a non-native speaker and that's not just a typo (since you did it twice), "loose" should be "lose".

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#53

Post by mattdeboard »

ddw wrote: post #27
Ronkdar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges don't grant patents. The US Patent Office does that. Patents this broad are not at all unusual.

Thanks for clarifying, I should look into it more but it's sometimes difficult to follow these legal things. I know it's not unusual, that's my basic question. I can't imagine anyone reading the patent excerpt in that article and going "oh yeah, Spotify definitely ripped that off." Why are these vague and general patents getting approved?

You should really listen to last week's This American Life, available on podcast.

You'd be horrified to learn that not only are overbroad patents being awarded to people, but also regularly being awarded to multiple people/business entities. Multiple groups holding patents for the same things.

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#54

Post by cma »

codeodor wrote: post #30

"You could have asked any semi-competent engineer how would you build a digital music streaming service, and you would have received a similar general explanation." The question I had after reading that was "who thought to ask about building a digital music streaming service in 1995?" I was a little disappointed the post didn't cover that. Statements like that remind me of the often cited "I could have done that" whe…

How is 1983 for you?

http://www.zappa.com/whatsnew/news/FZ-Proposal/index.html

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#55

Post by noonespecial »

jessriedel wrote: post #49
codeodor wrote: post #30

"You could have asked any semi-competent engineer how would you build a digital music streaming service, and you would have received a similar general explanation." The question I had after reading that was "who thought to ask about building a digital music streaming service in 1995?" I was a little disappointed the post didn't cover that. Statements like that remind me of the often cited "I could have done that" whe…

Patents are for actual technical implementation, not ideas for things which would be nice if they could actually be built. I don't get a patent for imagining how great it would be to have pizza delivered by slingshot even if no one has thought of it before, and even if it delivering pizza by slingshot turns out to revolutionize the world. I have to actually invent the slingshot capable of delivering a pizza accuratel…

Every hospital I've ever been in has foot pedal operated sinks on the way into the OR's. Most of the gizmos either have a patent number or a pending etched somewhere on them.

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#56

Post by ycombiefan »

jameskilton wrote: post #4
rkalla wrote: post #3

I am really curious if an event like this will eventually promote change in the software patent laws. We've been watching events like Lodsys running around kicking everyone in the knees and international developers pulling their apps out of the app store out of fear of litigation[1] while Apple seems unable[3] to actively step in and protect its developers. Then you have other patent trolls sitting around, biding the…

IANAL but I have to imagine that one simple rule would bring back the validity of patents as an innovation protector: If you have a patent, you MUST have a product or be working on a product using the technology in question or you cannot litigate others using your idea. Patents are required to protect the truly innovative individuals and groups from huge corporations who can, as you said, just steamroll them and stea…

URANALBUTT- no1 knows wtf your acronym means, what, that saved you two seconds of typing? type these things out

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#57

Post by rkalla »

ericd wrote: post #44
thaumaturgy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If software patents are done away with, I think we just throw the pendulum in the opposite direction and now everyone with money and strong development teams steamroll the competition. Historically, the alternative to patents is trade secrets. For example, you have Coca-Cola's closely-protected formula. In the example you gave, it's just as likely that Skype would instead protect its technology as a trade secret, a…

I think the 2 year software patent might be the way to go. That's a pretty compelling argument to say that things move much faster in software so the timespans should just be shortened significantly. You might even be able to convince lawmakers with that.

Agreed -- I also think 2 years in software is would be considered sufficient time to have a technological advantage over your competition. Maybe even 3 years.

But I think it's currently 11 or something like that isn't it?

In 11 years I'll probably be half robot... that seems like a long time.

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#58

Post by brlewis »

rkalla wrote: post #57
ericd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 2 year software patent might be the way to go. That's a pretty compelling argument to say that things move much faster in software so the timespans should just be shortened significantly. You might even be able to convince lawmakers with that.

Agreed -- I also think 2 years in software is would be considered sufficient time to have a technological advantage over your competition. Maybe even 3 years. But I think it's currently 11 or something like that isn't it? In 11 years I'll probably be half robot... that seems like a long time.

It's 17 years.

The 2-year software patent wouldn't fix other problems, such as the impossibility of determining novelty or nonobviousness in a field as varied and active as software. It's not wise to give the patent office an impossible job, when case law is largely based on presumption of validity.

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#59

Post by baddox »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #28
rkalla wrote: post #3

I am really curious if an event like this will eventually promote change in the software patent laws. We've been watching events like Lodsys running around kicking everyone in the knees and international developers pulling their apps out of the app store out of fear of litigation[1] while Apple seems unable[3] to actively step in and protect its developers. Then you have other patent trolls sitting around, biding the…

> If software patents are done away with, I think we just throw the pendulum in the opposite direction and now everyone with money and strong development teams steamroll the competition. Historically, the alternative to patents is trade secrets. For example, you have Coca-Cola's closely-protected formula. In the example you gave, it's just as likely that Skype would instead protect its technology as a trade secret, a…

I've never understood why trade secrets need any special treatment as "intellectual property" in our legal system. Aren't trespassing and contract laws (non-compete, NDA, etc.) sufficient?

Re: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market

#60

Post by moultano »

baddox wrote: post #59
thaumaturgy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If software patents are done away with, I think we just throw the pendulum in the opposite direction and now everyone with money and strong development teams steamroll the competition. Historically, the alternative to patents is trade secrets. For example, you have Coca-Cola's closely-protected formula. In the example you gave, it's just as likely that Skype would instead protect its technology as a trade secret, a…

I've never understood why trade secrets need any special treatment as "intellectual property" in our legal system. Aren't trespassing and contract laws (non-compete, NDA, etc.) sufficient?

It comes into play when someone under an NDA violates it. It seems reasonable that a company shouldn't be able to use something that required violating an NDA to find out.
Post reply on HN