Hacker News Reader

Comment by aolol | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting because this is the type of patent system abuse that we often rally so hard against. Now that the objective is somehow more 'noble' will we ignore that this approach is still fundamentally opposed to the prevailing opinion on the patent system and those who abuse it?

View on HN

I think this is very, very clearly abuse of the patent system, and kim dotcom knows this. every time there's a highly-public and totally absurd abuse of the patent system it erodes the system a little bit more. I would never suspect apple or oracle of attempting to erode the patent system by bringing absurd lawsuits, but it certainly sounds like the sort of thing that kim dotcom might do. I won't be so quick to judge him, given his stance on IP in general.

of course, i could be wrong and maybe he's just a massive hypocrite.

>I would never suspect apple or oracle of attempting to erode the patent system by bringing absurd lawsuits, but it certainly sounds like the sort of thing that kim dotcom might do.

What about Apple patenting the rectangular electronic device(see here: http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889) and suing Samsung for $2.5 billion dollars with the majority of the claim for producing rectangular phones/tablets (see here: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/08/03/apple-vs-samsung-who-...)

yes, that's what i meant when i said absurd abuse of the patent system. but do you really think apple's goal is to bring about patent reform?

It would be interesting to have real insight into what Apple thinks about the patent system. Obviously they are going to exploit the current system as best they can, as would any other company. However, the real question is financial for Apple, not ethical or moral, would they stand to make more money or less money based on a change? My guess is they want to eat their cake and have it too...meaning I am sure they want to be paid license fees on their IP and not have to pay anyone else, this would not be unique to Apple though.

Is KIM different? I do not know, but he is being tried criminally for a service that I have always believed is not fundamentally different than Google Drive, DropBox, MS SkyDrive, or iCloud. So it is interesting these guys do not stand up, if not for him, then for themselves as it would stand to reason they may be targeted next, but do you think the feds would ever round up their top level executives military style the way they did KIM?

I wouldn't have called this as patent abuse, he came up with a neat idea, and applied for a patent. He didn't use it, but that doesn't invalidate that he came up with the idea, he just moved on. He hasn't sold it to anyone, he's never used it aggressively. He's being a dick now and saying "I might have to sue you!", but it's not patent abuse in the way Intellectual Ventures approaches it.

Edit; Actually, I don't think it's patent abuse as much as it is good old fashioned extortion.

Patents aren't supposed to protect ideas.

It's a process, which is patentable.

In the US and virtually only the US.

No other country matters, according to the US. If a company in another country does business in the US it can be sued in Eastern Texas (patent trolls' heaven).

> I don't think it's patent abuse as much as it is good old fashioned extortion.

Precisely. Large companies routinely employ such negotiation, as does the US gov't to an extreme. Kim Dotcom is no worse.

But then, he isn't any better for it, either. This is patent trolling, plain and simple - I don't see why people are rallying around him in this.

Maybe for the same reason the masses rally around companies and gov'ts that do it.

Because he is The Little Guy, and there is a massive and highly publicized campaign by the US government against him. This is him doing what he can to fight back.

I think it says something that he never did anything with the patent until now, I believe that he has good intentions and no desire to be a patent troll. Given his unique situation, and his flair for drama and unorthodoxy, I think it makes perfect sense.

Yes, let's attempt to extort defense funds from large corporations. That will surely get them on his side.

Just because he's "The Little Guy" doesn't make it any better. Holding someone hostage to raise money for a cancer research foundation wouldn't make the act itself morally justified.

Excoriate Kim Dotcom but to avoid being hypocritical make sure you do likewise for those large corporations who perfected his method.

Flip it around, and that's where I'm at. Condemn the companies that the tactic is most associated with; don't excuse Kim Dotcom for doing it, too.

Not just this tactic but way worse too. Mass pollution, tax dodging, promoting war for profit, etc. Kim Dotcom is like Mother Teresa comparatively.

Well, yeah. But that doesn't make the tactics he's using here any less bad (in my book).

Well, I don't know what to say, I think we have basic ideological differences. I think every situation is unique and needs to be judged in full context, you seem to have a more rigid moral code. If that act actually moved the needle on cancer knowledge, I might support it.

This particular situation appeals to my romantic and absurdist philosophies, it's ballsy and interesting if nothing else.

In my opinion, it damages the arguments against such abuses of the patent system. A public outpouring of support for this case makes it seem like there's a double standard: that people oppose it in the typical context because of a general bias against large corporations, rather than a problem with patent trolling itself.

Well sure. I doubt Kim lobbied for software patents.

I oppose the use of land-mines in general but I support their placement in the boardrooms of corporations that manufacture them. Because heartless execs are nothing like innocent children. Context matters.

> Actually, I don't think it's patent abuse as much as it is good old fashioned extortion.

Seems to me that that's like saying "I don't think its criminal homicide so much as it is good old fashioned murder." Using patents to facilitate extortion is the main form of abuse that the phrase "patent abuse" is used to refer to.

But let's be careful and not attribute opinions from different individuals as incoherence by the whole community. Not everyone here agrees with the prevailing opinion on the patent system.

I think this is more a case of "give them a taste of their own medicine," or at least that Kim Dotcom wants it to be viewed that way.

[Edit: OR maybe not, should have read the entire article first...]

Uhm, I'm for changing patent law and I'm also for patents being abused as much as possible. The latter is linked to the former. People are never going to change patent law unless it hurts them.

I don't want people not to do it - some people are always going to do it and the longer it goes on the greater the damage - I want it not to be doable, have a decisive engagement, so to speak, and have the problem put to bed for a while.

I am a proponent of changing IP laws, but this does not seem to run a muck of the type of abuse typical of most patent trolls. KIM obviously developed this system, because he is/was intimately involved in the industry and he likely invented the patent in question, and actually used or intended to use the same in commerce.

Whereas your typical patent troll buys IP for the sole purpose of shaking people down, trolls usually did not invent or file the patent themselves, and they usually never have any intent to utilize the IP in the market. Additionally, patent trolls usually hold patents on patents that should not have been registered in the first place (they were obvious or the technology was already in the stream of commerce before the registration).

Disclaimer: I emailed KIM with interest in researching the issue, performing due diligence, and maybe enforcement per the article. Though any response will be maintained confidential. I also have a track record of supporting KIM on the underlying legal problem, including a few posts/comments here on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com