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

Enough Is Enough

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 193 posts

Re: Enough Is Enough

#81

Post by naner »

DrJokepu wrote: post #63
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?

Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part. First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned about oth…

We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work.

How is that plausible? Aren't these trade secrets? Is your research/work publicly visible?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#83

Post by citadrianne »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

I think it's hard to predict what abolishing patents would do to innovation. For example, there are no patents in fashion, which actually ends up putting pressure on creators to be superinnovative to stay ahead of the copycats. Ref: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang///id/866

Re: Enough Is Enough

#84

Post by fredwilson »

iamben wrote: post #22

Why not diminish the value of a patent once it's sold? That way you prevent companies like Lodsys buying and trolling, and if you put the money / time / resources into the development of something, you can reap the reward. Just a thought, not the answer. But the system is totally ridiculous as it stands.

i like that idea

Re: Enough Is Enough

#85

Post by Vivtek »

grimen wrote: post #60

Somethng like this scares the hell out of me: http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/05/17/facebook-patent-pho... Now I'm in Europe where this don't apply, but we actually had plans making our platform available in U.S. later on with something that has to do with tagging images - which itself is hardly any innovation (?!!)!. I mean, c'mon. We will now probably avoid that and look east instead. I'm still fascinated that t…

Amazon didn't just try to patent one-click purchasing. They actually hold said patent. They don't enforce it, largely because O'Reilly found prior art that could destroy it if Amazon ever oversteps, but they do hold the patent.

That's the central travesty here. Possibly if you're a patent attorney, you really do think purchasing with one click is a detailed and arcane technology the development of which is expensive enough to require a 20-year monopoly, but all that tells me is that patent attorneys are somewhat dim people who wouldn't understand productive work if it bit them in the face.

Not that I have strong feelings or anything.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#86

Post by MatthewPhillips »

I think there are 2 main problems here.

1) Patenting obvious stuff / stuff with prior art. "X, but on the internet"

2) Patenting stuff with no intention of releasing a product.

I see a lot of talk about the former and not enough about the latter. My question is this, could we put a time limit on releasing a product once a patent is awarded? Is it normal in other industries to patent something as soon as possible or do they wait until a product is ready to be released? What would be an acceptable time limit? In this case, the patent was issued in May 2007, 4 years ago. Is it reasonable for the inventor to not have a product using this on the market yet?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#87

Post by scott_s »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #16
DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

It would be a pretty messed up system if there were never any cases where patents were justified. Yours sounds like an edge case. The real question is what's best for the industry as a whole?

Rather than being an edge case, I think that what DrJokepu described is the intended case. But the system has been gamed.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#88

Post by Vivtek »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

While this has no bearing on the law, I've always thought that works of software that represent an actual effort of development comparable to physical invention should enjoy the benefit of patents. This is precisely what the patent system was designed to do - protect large research investments.

The abuse of the system for things that really don't require research and development is at issue here. I think proposals to abolish software patents entirely are probably wrong - but granting patents on XOR, or 1-click, or doing something obvious but on a computer system, are equally wrong.

Put it this way: if I have a problem to be solved by software that is really hard (such as your algorithm), then I'm going to research it before spending five man-years developing it, find you guys, and happily license your solution. No question. And if somebody reverse engineers your solution and sells it, then by God they should be penalized for violating your patent. This is why we have patents.

But if I have an idea like 1-click and pay an Indian developer $10 an hour for a week to develop it, this is simply not worthy of monopoly protection; your disclosing your solution isn't that valuable. If, seventeen years from now, after I've built an online shopping empire while you haven't, you sell your patent to Lodsys and they sue me for a billion dollars out of the blue, that is highway robbery, and it's not in any way helping society - and that is the situation we actually currently have.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#89

Post by edanm »

naner wrote: post #81
DrJokepu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part. First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned about oth…

We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. How is that plausible? Aren't these trade secrets? Is your research/work publicly visible?

Seriously?

They sell the product to customers, other people spend a small amount of time reverse-engineering how it was done, and copy it.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#90

Post by atirip »

praptak wrote: post #66
atirip wrote: post #48

Why not incorporate in Europe? Ireland, like Google? Software patent problem solved.

Only if you won't do any business in US, ever.

First, you can easily leave old company behind and establish a new, clean one, transfering all assets. Second you can have a separate company (like an agent) for doing business in US. Third, why do you need, as a software company, to do any business IN US anyway? WITH US residents you can without any worries.
Post reply on HN