5 ms·

I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24

I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northern-district-court/think-computer-corporation-v-square-inc/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe...). I don't apologize for it. I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. I'm also someone well known for having dealt with intellectual property theft as a victim. I also spent a year at Stanford Law School poking around as a fellow as I developed what is now the most accurate patent assignment database there is--far more accurate than the official one--on PlainSite. I'll be deliberately terse with my comments here, but the upshot is that the problem here isn't the idea of patents. They are a lottery ticket to a lawsuit as Elon Musk has said, but they're also an important insurance policy for serious innovators. (Another such insurance policy is VC, but not every serious innovator has VC backing.) The problem is the legal profession. Patent trolls (and other sorts of IP trolls) are by and large the creations of corrupt lawyers. Inventors are slighted in favor of large corporations because of "upstanding" lawyers. Transparency is impeded everywhere you turn in the patent world courtesy of the patent bar. And unlike the USPTO TTAB, where corporations can represent themselves at virtually no cost, in the USPTO PTAB, the patent bar has seen to it that you must hire a lawyer. It's not a coincidence. The system is incredibly broken, but if you want to blame someone, blame the lawyers for ruining what might have been a workable and necessary paradigm.

aetherson 11y ago
There are lots of things where "the idea of them" isn't bad, but they can't be turned into law-enforced policy without leading to bad consequences. That's not really the fault of lawyers, either.
mikekchar 11y ago
If anyone is curious about the patent the parent is suing for, it is included in the documents he linked to. Here is an handier link: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&a=3&z=d3106d66 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&... I'm afraid that I (and surely many others on Hacker News as well) will not be cheering you on. It's pretty much the definition of something I do not want to be patentable. I understand it will probably not be possible to convince you to change your mind, so I won't insult you by trying. However, keep in mind that your stance really is diametrically opposed to many groups who do not want software patents.
- pc86 11y ago
  It's the "for payments" version of all those "but on a screen" patents that people here hate on so much. Prior work includes but is not limited to Facebook tag suggestions, and and just about everything done in facial recognition on any laptop in the world.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  See also http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-aaron-greenspan-sues-facebook-again-plus-the-rest-of-silicon-valley/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-...
ploxiln 11y ago
If patents were granted fairly and litigated fairly and efficiently, sure, they'd be great. But they just can't be. Many millions of dollars are spent gaining bad patents and litigating them unfairly. In practice, they're a tool which enables and amplifies the worse parts of human and societal nature, a tool for the abuse of power. I say we just give them up. There may be fewer published inventions, but not that many fewer really. Some inventors will be motivated to invent for its own sake. Others will profit from being involved in the implementation and commercialization of their own inventions combined with others. Some inventors will get "screwed" when others get rich off their creations. But that happens today anyway. There will likely be disagreements about who really came up with the core of an idea first, or who's idea is really more core to the product, and without patents, those arguments won't cost millions of dollars and stifle creation. Everyone would be better off IMHO.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  A huge part your argument comes down to "it will all be the same as now but magically better" but you didn't bother to make a case, just list out some very assertive predictions.
  - ploxiln 11y ago
    But I did make a case: no patent lawsuits. That's easily big enough to counter any downsides.
- meanduck 11y ago
  Also, Its very likely that the invention will be reinvented by someone. Is not there a public patent review process before a patent is granted so the other inventors can provide alternative solutions ? This would solve most if not all problems.
scriptproof 11y ago
No need to downvote a comment that exposes an opinion you disagree with (and I disagree too). The patent is clearly a joke: "A method for transferring an electronic payment between a purchaser and a merchant etc...". Instead of downvote, send a letter to your congressmen to stop this ludicrous software patent thing, it will be more useful.
- coldpie 11y ago
  Nothing wrong with sending a clear message to someone actively trying to do harm to innovation. That kind of behavior should not be welcome in our industry.
  - thinkcomp 11y ago
    Your message's clarity gets muddied by your overzealousness I'm afraid. It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. Smart people can disagree on this topic. I understand that a lot of people don't think there should be software patents, or patents at all. I don't think it's that simple.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      > It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. You sued Square, right? Square benefited in no way from your work or from your patent, but now you're either expecting payment from them for no services rendered, or forcing them to waste their resources fighting your shakedown attempt. In what worldview is that not harming innovation?
      - thinkcomp 11y ago
        Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. And why bother when you can spew factually incorrect vitriol at someone over the internet? Not to mention that Square's fundamental innovation, its credit card reader, is premised on intellectual property theft. See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-squares-start-up-story/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-s.... So in addition to holding a hundred more patents than my company, Square isn't even being honest about who deserves credit for theirs. Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys, and non-VC backed independent inventors are actively destroying innovation, because they hold patents? I have to disagree.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe... http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe...). I don't apologize for it. I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. That's great you made a real product. So many who file patents don't end up creating real products. But the problem here is you made a real product that's pretty generic much akind to the patents of "input devices changes display on output device" kind of patents. It's an abuse of the system that many are working to eradicate. So I don't think you're going to find any support on HN for it. It's great you're not like the typical patent troll since you claim you made a product (of which I have not verified but I give you the benefit of the doubt) but obvious design patents hurt innovation. Hell to some degree all patents hurt innovation but the obvious designs are the most egregious in my opinion.
coldpie 11y ago
> I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. Doesn't matter. You're trying to take ownership of an obvious idea. Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square, nor did anyone at Square learn how to perform this process by your patent. They don't owe you a cent. It is only by a shitty quirk of the system, which you are taking advantage of, that allows you to try to extort money out of them. You are part of the problem.
- jb613 11y ago
  > Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square question is how do we distinguish between patents that "inspired" and those which did not? Or does inspiring even matter - anyone can see the "inspiration" on Android from the release of the 1st iPhone (e.g. before and after designs) - yet this fact plus all of Apple's $billions were unable to stop/prevent Android from their clearly inspired copying.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > shitty quirk of the system Is it still considered a quirk when it's by design and it's the entire point of the system? If we're only talking about damages for when designs are copied (instead of independently developed), we're basically talking about trade secret misappropriation.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    There is no evidence that Square viewed and copied this dude's "novel invention".
    - URSpider94 11y ago
      You're misreading parent's comment. What s/he is saying is that if someone flat-out copied your design, then that would presumably be trade secret appropriation. Patents are SUPPOSED to cover the case where someone else invents the same thing in parallel, independently. You might not like it, but that's a legal fact. Clearly, you have a different moral opinion of when someone should be able to enforce their patent rights.
nkurz 11y ago
Since no one else has said it yet, thanks for contributing your insight to this discussion. You must have known it would be a hostile audience, and that many wouldn't agree with you, but we benefit from hearing your side and being able to talk about the disagreement. Genuinely, thanks for your bravery and openness in discussing it.

aetherson 11y ago

There are lots of things where "the idea of them" isn't bad, but they can't be turned into law-enforced policy without leading to bad consequences. That's not really the fault of lawyers, either.

mikekchar 11y ago

If anyone is curious about the patent the parent is suing for, it is included in the documents he linked to. Here is an handier link: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&a=3&z=d3106d66 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=132275042&... I'm afraid that I (and surely many others on Hacker News as well) will not be cheering you on. It's pretty much the definition of something I do not want to be patentable. I understand it will probably not be possible to convince you to change your mind, so I won't insult you by trying. However, keep in mind that your stance really is diametrically opposed to many groups who do not want software patents.

pc86 11y ago
It's the "for payments" version of all those "but on a screen" patents that people here hate on so much. Prior work includes but is not limited to Facebook tag suggestions, and and just about everything done in facial recognition on any laptop in the world.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
See also http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-aaron-greenspan-sues-facebook-again-plus-the-rest-of-silicon-valley/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/07/zuckerberg-nemesis-...

ploxiln 11y ago

If patents were granted fairly and litigated fairly and efficiently, sure, they'd be great. But they just can't be. Many millions of dollars are spent gaining bad patents and litigating them unfairly. In practice, they're a tool which enables and amplifies the worse parts of human and societal nature, a tool for the abuse of power. I say we just give them up. There may be fewer published inventions, but not that many fewer really. Some inventors will be motivated to invent for its own sake. Others will profit from being involved in the implementation and commercialization of their own inventions combined with others. Some inventors will get "screwed" when others get rich off their creations. But that happens today anyway. There will likely be disagreements about who really came up with the core of an idea first, or who's idea is really more core to the product, and without patents, those arguments won't cost millions of dollars and stifle creation. Everyone would be better off IMHO.

oldmanjay 11y ago
A huge part your argument comes down to "it will all be the same as now but magically better" but you didn't bother to make a case, just list out some very assertive predictions.
- ploxiln 11y ago
  But I did make a case: no patent lawsuits. That's easily big enough to counter any downsides.
meanduck 11y ago
Also, Its very likely that the invention will be reinvented by someone. Is not there a public patent review process before a patent is granted so the other inventors can provide alternative solutions ? This would solve most if not all problems.

scriptproof 11y ago

No need to downvote a comment that exposes an opinion you disagree with (and I disagree too). The patent is clearly a joke: "A method for transferring an electronic payment between a purchaser and a merchant etc...". Instead of downvote, send a letter to your congressmen to stop this ludicrous software patent thing, it will be more useful.

coldpie 11y ago
Nothing wrong with sending a clear message to someone actively trying to do harm to innovation. That kind of behavior should not be welcome in our industry.
- thinkcomp 11y ago
  Your message's clarity gets muddied by your overzealousness I'm afraid. It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. Smart people can disagree on this topic. I understand that a lot of people don't think there should be software patents, or patents at all. I don't think it's that simple.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    > It's absurd to say that I am "actively trying to do harm to innovation." I filed for patents on novel processes to protect myself. That's inherently defensive, not offensive. You sued Square, right? Square benefited in no way from your work or from your patent, but now you're either expecting payment from them for no services rendered, or forcing them to waste their resources fighting your shakedown attempt. In what worldview is that not harming innovation?
    - thinkcomp 11y ago
      Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't take the time to read the complaint. And why bother when you can spew factually incorrect vitriol at someone over the internet? Not to mention that Square's fundamental innovation, its credit card reader, is premised on intellectual property theft. See http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-squares-start-up-story/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/lawsuit-questions-s.... So in addition to holding a hundred more patents than my company, Square isn't even being honest about who deserves credit for theirs. Yet you argue that they're the pro-innovation good guys, and non-VC backed independent inventors are actively destroying innovation, because they hold patents? I have to disagree.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

> I own a few patents, as I'm sure many on Hacker News do. As I write this, I'm in the middle of a patent lawsuit with Square (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe... http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24u13j6tr/california-northe...). I don't apologize for it. I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. That's great you made a real product. So many who file patents don't end up creating real products. But the problem here is you made a real product that's pretty generic much akind to the patents of "input devices changes display on output device" kind of patents. It's an abuse of the system that many are working to eradicate. So I don't think you're going to find any support on HN for it. It's great you're not like the typical patent troll since you claim you made a product (of which I have not verified but I give you the benefit of the doubt) but obvious design patents hurt innovation. Hell to some degree all patents hurt innovation but the obvious designs are the most egregious in my opinion.

coldpie 11y ago

> I'm not a troll. I'm an inventor and I made a real product. Doesn't matter. You're trying to take ownership of an obvious idea. Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square, nor did anyone at Square learn how to perform this process by your patent. They don't owe you a cent. It is only by a shitty quirk of the system, which you are taking advantage of, that allows you to try to extort money out of them. You are part of the problem.

jb613 11y ago
> Your patent did not inspire anyone at Square question is how do we distinguish between patents that "inspired" and those which did not? Or does inspiring even matter - anyone can see the "inspiration" on Android from the release of the 1st iPhone (e.g. before and after designs) - yet this fact plus all of Apple's $billions were unable to stop/prevent Android from their clearly inspired copying.
monochromatic 11y ago
> shitty quirk of the system Is it still considered a quirk when it's by design and it's the entire point of the system? If we're only talking about damages for when designs are copied (instead of independently developed), we're basically talking about trade secret misappropriation.
- coldpie 11y ago
  There is no evidence that Square viewed and copied this dude's "novel invention".
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    You're misreading parent's comment. What s/he is saying is that if someone flat-out copied your design, then that would presumably be trade secret appropriation. Patents are SUPPOSED to cover the case where someone else invents the same thing in parallel, independently. You might not like it, but that's a legal fact. Clearly, you have a different moral opinion of when someone should be able to enforce their patent rights.

nkurz 11y ago

Since no one else has said it yet, thanks for contributing your insight to this discussion. You must have known it would be a hostile audience, and that many wouldn't agree with you, but we benefit from hearing your side and being able to talk about the disagreement. Genuinely, thanks for your bravery and openness in discussing it.