Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikitaga | Hacker News Reader

This EFF release isn't about what technicalities or creative interpretations USPTO used to avoid the complying with Alice because that guidance isn't new, what's new is a report that shows the dramatic effect of their avoidance, and that's what the article is about.

If you really wanted to know what the guidance was, literally the first link in TFA leads to an EFF backgrounder that explains it, including linking to the actual source.

EFF's mission is to effect positive change in technology. If you disagree with their views on software patents, you should expect to not like what or how they have to say. Their mission is not to convert you, it's to drive support and engagement for their ideals among their supporters and undecideds.

I personally do agree with them on software patents, and so I approve of their methods because I can see that they optimize for effectiveness of their campaign, as they should.

View on HN

The entire article is about how new guidance had a negative impact. I don't think it's a responsible presentation of the topic if the only way you can find out exactly what they're objecting to is by finding another article, which you don't know whether or not it will have that very relevant information, read it, and then link to a third piece of writing to actually get anywhere.

The EFF clearly knows what the guidance says, it would have taken little effort to give an abstract of it. But more and more they seem to have little interest in generating reasoned agreement with their cause, only reflexive support induced by anger and indignation. The cynic in me says it's because they realized it works better, gets more donations. But regardless if their intentions, it comes off as a bit scummy.

> it comes off as a bit scummy.

And patent trolls? They’re hardworking American businesspeople? Last I checked, their tactics were vexatious litigation, bullying, browbeating, and buying support.

In short, if you’re going to fight a pig, you’re going to have to get in the mud with it.

If you just stand there making reasoned arguments as to why the pig should lie down, the pig will just look at you, shit on the floor, and continue doing what it was doing.

Not everyone trying to patent a computer-implemented invention is a patent troll. Some of those applicants are actually creating a product/service. Some of them are spending b/millions creating things that were previously not considered possible. Should they be rewarded for the effort if in fact it is determined to be possible?

Not everyone, but statistically, the majority.

If you want to be a “good guy” patent holder, why don’t you get involved in fighting patent trolls?

...no? Well, that’s because, unfortunately, the distinction between a troll and a “good guy” is a fine, often blurry line.

There are other ways to monetise research, like, actually building things.

Why not try that?

Based on my experience as a patent examiner and a patent attorney, it’s definitely not “the majority” of applicants that can be considered any kind of “troll.” Like many other fields and aspects of life, it’s a highly vocal and visible minority that you’re mostly aware of, because the mundane players are, well, mundane.

Really, do you think software patents have done more harm or good? Show me the vibrant ecosystem that software patents have enabled. Patents should never have been applied to software and they're a cancer on the industry.

No, I pretty much agree, but just wanted to point out that an overwhelming majority of patents and patent applicants are very boring and don't make any headlines, ever. That's all.

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2018/9/28/q3-2018-pa...

> High Tech companies, both large entities and SMEs, face a disproportionate number of NPE-related threats as compared to other sectors.

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/annual-report?year=20...

I suppose, to be fair, if you are an NPE asserting a claim over what is legitimately your invention, are you a troll?

Perhaps, since NPE enforcement is basically a game of threats and legal costs, you don’t see what is actually happening?

Opinions vary.

My position is quite simple: if you are an NPE, you’re a troll.

Use it, or lose it.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with much of that. Just pointing out that a majority of patents and patentees aren't really headline-grabbing or anything. Just boring paper shuffling that will never have any impact on anyone, good or bad.

That's just whataboutism though. And sure, in your analogy, you'll have to get in the mud, but that doesn't mean you have to also act like a pig, enjoying it and maybe even shitting on the floor too. Neither does EFF's mission require them to stoop at the level of whomever they are opposing.

The fact that patent trolls are scummy doesn't exonerate other scummy behavior. As an example, we wouldn't accept violent protests as an appropriate counter to other people's violent protests.

In this particular case, where the messages are borderline propaganda, that is unacceptable, especially when they could have kept the same exact content but added an abstract of the new guidance and greatly improved the quality of their article by actually providing material support for their point of view.

Convenient metaphors of pig fighting are misleading and inaccurate. They promote a mentality of action based on anger rather than effectiveness. To avoid metaphors and give a concrete example of not lowering one's self to scummy tactics, you have only to look to the non-violent civil rights movements that have prevailed in the last hundred years.

You also assume the "dirty pig" or scummy tactics are directed at the "opposition". They are not. When the EFF actually fights these battles, say in court, they cannot refer to general platitudes and content-less rhetoric, they must use reasoned arguments. Their scummy tactics in this article are directed at those they seek to support them!

THis is nonsense. The USPTO is applying clear POST_ALICE precedent set forth by the Federal Circuit. The USPTO is heavily weighting their guidance to cases and fact patterns that the Supreme Court has explicitly denied cert, evidencing that they see no reason to revise the Federal Circuit decision. Alice is still good law. However, an invention that lies in software can be patentable. THe new USPTO guidance provide that (actual guidance) to patent seekers on how to describe and claim their invention so that it actually reads on patentable subject matter. Nearly always (maybe even just always) this results in narrower patents that are restricted to a new and non-obvious specific implementation of the basic concept of the invention. That sounds reasonable to me.

> I personally do agree with them on software patents, and so I approve of their methods

Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "The ends justify the means"

Maybe sometimes they do?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com