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

When Patents Attack

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: When Patents Attack

#71

Post by MartinCron »

mckoss wrote: post #62
moultano wrote: post #61

Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year. If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.

I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry. AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough.

Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

Re: When Patents Attack

#72

Post by cookiecaper »

mpk wrote: post #22
almightygod wrote: post #3

I get anxious every time I read another patent troll story wondering when my weekend creations will end up costing me $ when they accidentally infringe on a patent because I roll out some seemingly ubiquitous feature. I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.

> [...] they accidentally infringe on a patent I hate to break it to you, but chances are that you infringe on hundreds, if not more, patents in the US. Nobody can tell you what or even how many patents you infringe on, though. Nobody has read all the patents and every single one is subject to interpretation. An interpretation, I might add, that has to be validated by a legal system that really doesn't care about cor…

As usual, the only way to rectify the software patent situation is to hit the big guys where it hurts. If we want to software patents go away, we need to see that Microsoft, Apple, and other big players are sued and lose for patent infringement on a regular, expensive basis. If we can hit the big projects frequently enough they will give up, decide the patent regime costs more than it's worth, and get their cronies in politics to turn it off. It is not likely that things improve until this happens.

A couple of years ago a company called i4i got an injunction issued prohibiting the sale of Microsoft Office for (frivolous) patent infringement. Of course, Microsoft panicked and worked around the patent immediately, released a patch, and sent out new packages to suppliers -- expensive indeed but at least they avoided actually not being able to sell Office at all. If we have this kind of thing happen to multiple big companies even a few times a year I think we'll be on track to some serious patent reform. Until then, it's just too profitable to pillage the little guy and engage in mutual cross-licensing and suit settlements among competitors than it is to care that it is impossible to write software without violating hundreds of patents.

We know the saying: "the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it". I've heard it attributed to Teddy Roosevelt but can't seem to find a good reference atm.

Re: When Patents Attack

#74

Post by Terry_B »

MartinCron wrote: post #71
mckoss wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry. AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough. Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

Can you name an example of a good software patent?

Re: When Patents Attack

#75

Post by recoiledsnake »

Terry_B wrote: post #74
MartinCron wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough. Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

Can you name an example of a good software patent?

http://math.uic.edu/~jlong/MCS425Fall10/RSA-patent.pdf

Re: When Patents Attack

#76

Post by kanetrain »

mckoss wrote: post #62
moultano wrote: post #61

Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year. If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.

I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry. AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.

THIS. the patent office has turned in to a bit of a joke. Well, software patents in general have turned into a joke.

Re: When Patents Attack

#77

Post by skrebbel »

dstein wrote: post #58

As the article only touched on, this is precisely why the next computing giant will not come from Silicon Valley or anywhere in the US. The current software patent situation has ensured it.

I doubt it. The next computing giant will want to sell in the US, too. Patent laws don't cover where you're from, they cover where you sell (or where you give away free stuff but make money from ads). You'd have to block all US visitors from your site to avoid the US patent system.

I've been thinking about workarounds. Could a "I confirm that I'm from Malaysia" button do the trick?

Re: When Patents Attack

#78

Post by MartinCron »

Terry_B wrote: post #74
MartinCron wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough. Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

Can you name an example of a good software patent?

As long as it meets the non-obvious and no-prior-art tests, I don't see a problem with the concept.

Something like mouse gestures feel like a patentable innovation worthy of a temporary government-enforced monopoly.

Re: When Patents Attack

#79

Post by kanetrain »

MartinCron wrote: post #71
mckoss wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry. AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.

Honestly, if the patent office would just do their job and not grant bogus patents based on obvious inventions or inventions with prior art, that would probably be enough. Software patents aren't the problem, bad software patents are the problem.

There are lot of additional problems though... the way the Patent Office washes their hands and leaves it up to the courts to sort things out etc. I personally think ALL software patents should be abolished completely. In absence of that, NPE's "non-practicing entities" should not be allowed to hold patents. You need to prove that you are using it (in commerce) to keep the patent. And you should not be able to sell a patent unless it is sold with an existing revenue producing business. The US system has turned into a joke.
Post reply on HN