Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform?

#61

Post by ulfw » Thu, May 22, 2014, 9:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #37

ulfw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it depends on wether 1 company employing 100,000 people is better or 10,000 companies employing 10 each. Of course it's easier to represent the will of 1 vs the not-always-overlapping-voices of 10,000.

This is a good point, but remember the small business coalition is split. Congress sees some small businesses saying that troll lawsuits hinder their business, while others, particularly in capital-intensive areas like telecoms or medical devices, saying that patents give them protections from larger competitors and provide leverage in getting funding and or being acquired.

Very much agree. Which goes to my point that 10,000 companies with 10 employees each won't ever be able to speak with one voice/have one agenda or one opinion. Much easier to do with a 100,000 people mega corp ;)

Re: Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform?

#62

Post by lowbloodsugar » Thu, May 22, 2014, 11:35 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #34

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #27

"The bipartisan compromise on patents was headed for a markup on Thursday. But Leahy suddenly took it off the table after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intervened at the last minute, according to multiple people close to the negotiations." Would these be multiple Republican people? Kill the bill and blame it on Reid! Twofer! Not saying its true, just awed by the credulity of some of the comments here.

That could work... if Reid was stupid. Stupid enough to be manipulated by the Republicans, and then stupid enough to just silently take the blame. I don't think that Reid got where he is by being politically stupid. Therefore, I don't buy your scenario. [Edit: I just re-read the parent, and realized the claim was that Republicans did the killing, not that they manipulated Reid into doing the killing. I still don't bu…

"[It was Reid's fault] say numerous sources".

I'm not saying he did it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying the washington post reported unnamed sources said Reid did it.

I think that's a pretty low bar of evidence, is all I'm saying.

Re: Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform?

#63

Post by maxerickson » Thu, May 22, 2014, 11:51 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #38

maxerickson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs. One thing that would probably help but will never happen would be to figure out how to make committee chairs service positions that had less influence over the output of the committee than the other members.

> That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs. Good. I think the people using these government jobs in this manner are the people we don't need overseeing those contracts.

I don't think you can make enough rules to stop the wrong sort of people. I guess I would prefer amending the overall process to make it less interesting to even try to exploit (rather than enumerating and banning a bunch of different ways of collecting the reward).

Also, a 10 year ban is worth negative hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sort of person that is competent and understands the field they are working in. That's a pretty big disincentive, never mind that 'government job' already sort of has a negative association for lots of motivated people.

Re: Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform?

#64

Post by jp555 » Fri, May 23, 2014, 11:34 AM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #49

jp555 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A patent is nothing until it is tested in court; which is very expensive, patent reform or not.

But that's completely false isn't it, just like saying that copyright is nothing until it's tested in court? There is absolutely a difference between a copyrighted image and a free to use image, even if I know the copyright holder is in no position to sue me. Likewise, there is a clear difference between someone's protected invention (if they have passed a very high bar over prior art, obviousness, etc) and the way t…

It's not like copyright. Copyright is automatic, a patent requires expensive application, and even then it's only as good as it works in court. This is why the patent trolls choose venues for their actions that have a historical bias in their favour.

A patent by itself is not a very big moat to protect against competition; if you don't believe me just ask Samsung. The only way to actually turn a patent into force is to spend a gargantuan among of money on lawyers. I just think 99% of time that capital is better spent in other areas in the business. Spend it to get better at "running upstairs" - http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html for example.

Patents can be valuable as part of a business's competitive advantage. However, recently the damage caused by trolls using this as their only competitive advantage has made patent's negatives far outweigh their positives to the markets at large.

Re: Who’s behind the last-minute push to thwart patent reform?

#65

Post by protomyth » Fri, May 23, 2014, 1:44 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #63

protomyth wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like it might have some negative effects on the pool of people willing to take those jobs. Good. I think the people using these government jobs in this manner are the people we don't need overseeing those contracts.

I don't think you can make enough rules to stop the wrong sort of people. I guess I would prefer amending the overall process to make it less interesting to even try to exploit (rather than enumerating and banning a bunch of different ways of collecting the reward). Also, a 10 year ban is worth negative hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sort of person that is competent and understands the field they are working…

I think two simple bans will have a huge effect on the corruption. I just don't see it as good for society that a competent person goes to work for the government in a management position then leaves for the private sector to work at a company they were managing contracts. I would rather the motivated people stay in the private sector in the first place and not see government as a stepping stone.