The Twitter "Patent Hack" • Hacker News Board

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#51

Post by larrys » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 10:34 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #47

phillmv wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would doubt it. For starters, how would you enforce licensing? You'd have to… sue other people for patent infringement. I thought we were all agreeing that software patents are mostly unadulterated bullshit. Secondly, if they put up the patent lawyer cost why wouldn't they also keep any potential licensing fees ;)? In the end the Right Thing To Do™ would be to publish your work and try to establish it as prior art…

Hey Phil, long time no see :) The reason would be so that would have more ammo in their arsenal and would be untouchable by any real company (they would still be touchable by patent trolls, but that is a different issue). As for licensing enforcement, simple I wouldn't enforce it! :) I would just enter as an ally with any unfortunate company that is getting sued by an aggressive company. Furthermore, there are real b…

"Twitter could morph into a patent shield for hire"

That's not their business model and no matter how noble the idea I can't imagine them going down that road. Even if it in some way benefits them.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#52

Post by fredwilson » Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 12:19 AM UTC

damoncali wrote: post #26

brlewis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you expect investors to be stupid? The article we're commenting on is an investor excited that software patents will stop holding up profits.

A very specific kind of investor - a career-long early stage VC. But even there, there is much room for disagreement without labeling people as "stupid". I expect investors to be rational - and to seek profits where they are available given the information that is currently on the table. In some cases, that means they will say, "you know what? Screw that doc - we're selling these puppies."

rational investors care about their reputation because that is what gets them into the good deals. maximizing profits over a career may require different actions than you think

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#53

Post by Kliment » Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 5:36 AM UTC

damoncali wrote: post #28

fredwilson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, exactly. that is the thing that many people are missing about the elegance of this hack

Wouldn't this "evil" company just buy out or otherwise pressure the inventor? I don't see how that works. In one case, evil company buys patent, and pays off everyone involved to drop this agreement. Now we're back to normal. In another case, evil company can't get eveyrone to do that, so the transaction doesn't happen. This seems exactly the same as saying "We won't use our patents offensively, and we won't sell the…

Well, if the inventor does not want to be bought out, and does not want to give up the agreement, the patent cannot be used offensively. This reduces the value of the patent as a weapon. This is exactly what this agreement is meant to achieve.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#54

Post by raldi » Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 11:49 AM UTC

Kliment wrote: post #53

damoncali wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't this "evil" company just buy out or otherwise pressure the inventor? I don't see how that works. In one case, evil company buys patent, and pays off everyone involved to drop this agreement. Now we're back to normal. In another case, evil company can't get eveyrone to do that, so the transaction doesn't happen. This seems exactly the same as saying "We won't use our patents offensively, and we won't sell the…

Well, if the inventor does not want to be bought out, and does not want to give up the agreement, the patent cannot be used offensively. This reduces the value of the patent as a weapon. This is exactly what this agreement is meant to achieve.

Replace "inventor" with "inventor's employer", and your comment refers to the status quo. Are we supposing inventors to be resistant to greed?