Hacker News Reader

Comment by dstein | Hacker News Reader

The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets.

I'm beyond convinced that the entire software patent systems needs to be abolished.

View on HN

>The only difference between Lodsys and large software/hardware companies like Microsoft and Oracle is the size of their litigation targets.

And the fact that MS and Oracle actually make products.

And the fact that so far Lodsys's patents seem to be things which are very obvious and therefore very questionable which isn't true of all patents.

I wonder what would happen if government became a result oriented organization. If the point of patents is to increase innovation, shouldn't you be able to measure innovation? And if you can't measure the impact of patents on innovation, what evidence is their to justify monopolizing ideas? If you can't measure and observe, then what's the evidence? I would say there is none, it's entirely subjective. Unconditional support for actions regardless of consequence is a bit religious to me, and there used to be separation of church and state.. but I guess that can't really be measured, can it?

It's not religion. You are using a different (and objectively better) standard of proof. But it's literally a billion times easier to measure things like that than it was 240 years ago, when all math was done by hand and the fastest communication was by horse.

You, as a citizen, can demand results and proof. That's how any human institution evolves. Grumping on the internet about how stupid everyone is because things aren't done the way you want will not produce measurable results.

Grumping on the internet about how stupid everyone is because things aren't done the way you want will not produce measurable results.

I know this is a common thing to say, but speaking one's mind is an effective way of producing results. The more people are aware of and share an opinion, the more likely one of those people will have the necessary motivation and influence to "do something" about it.

More patents means more innovation, right? Because more innovative ideas have been protected, right?

So, I bet they actually do measure. Just not the way any sane person would expect. But this is what always happens if a happens if you try to run something, that is hard or impossible to measure, "economically". You revert to one of the things you can trivially count and claim that more (or less) is better. If you are one of the smart ones you dabble with relative and not absolute numbers. This is especially true for political or public institutions without any goal above "accounting of men and things" because it just doesn't matter any more to them.

More patents means more innovation, right? Because more innovative ideas have been protected, right?

This is not just a problem for the federal government. If I remember correctly, at a banquet hosted by my state's government in honor of local innovators, the emcee announced with pride the number of patents that had been granted to local businesses and inventors.

It seems companies (large or small) are all afraid that someone may take their once 'decent' idea, perfect it and make a better product. Can you imagine the anarchy that would ensue if companies were forced to be innovative? They'd run the risk of losing customers who are frustrated with their stale solutions/products. We just can't have that. Ludicrous, this idea you suggest!

My understanding is that Microsoft hates software patents (at least when BillG was CEO), has only registered them out of necessity, has historically only sued relatively few other companies, and only done so with either real patents (non-obvious, read beyond the patent title) or as a retaliation of being sued itself. I’m sure there are a few exceptions here as there are always.

They aren't suing every Android OEM out of necessity. Microsoft has converted to patent troll in lieu of innovating in the mobile space.

By the very definition of "patent troll", Microsoft is not a patent troll.

According to Wikipedia:

  The term "patent troll" was used as early as 1993 to
  describe companies that file aggressive patent lawsuits.

That's not exactly true- they are innovating, but they're also a patent troll. There's no reason why they can't be both.

You can't be a patent troll if you're actually making a product. The entire "business model" of a patent troll is to make money off of lawsuits, not from actually selling things.

Yes. Though of course, if a big company that was actually making things, bought a patent troll and just let the get on with their business, I'd still be inclined to call the new subsidiary a patent troll.

This is true. I probably should have said "companies that make products related to their patents cannot be patent trolls".

A friend of mine was working in the Hustler store in Cincinnati in the late 90's/early 2000. You know how Larry Flynt opened a store in Cincinnati, despite the legislation passed specifically to exclude his businesses? They had boxes of butterfly, rainbow, and unicorn stickers in the basement. Every single sticker was inventoried separately, so legally, the Hustler store didn't have a majority inventory of adult items.

There's nothing preventing a sufficiently large company from being some fraction X and another fraction Y.

All systems have bugs, which is why simpler systems are easier to manage in the long run.

They're using their patents to crush their competitors. It's not patent trolling, it's anti-competitive behavior.

I don't think they're trying to "crush" Samsung by extorting $15 per handset, I'd say they're trying to maximize their revenues by charging as much as they possibly can without triggering a lawsuit.

If they wanted to crush Samsung, they'd insist that Samsung sell WP7 phones or nothing. If their patents hold up, that is their right.

I find this hard to believe. It may have been their MO in the very early days but they later started building one of the largest patent portfolios in the world and their CTO went on to become one of the largest patent trolls in the world.

Their outlook on using their patent portfolio has changed in these past few years. As their reputation for innovation goes down, their reputation for trolling is going up.I guess trolling is inversely proportional to innovation after all.

Amazon is a famous example of this. Search for "Amazon patent" on Slashdot for some history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com