16 ms·

it'd be cheaper for Novartis to just have these guys killed. Maybe after a dozen or so patent trolls end up dead, they might go looking for a safer market. Fra

by vaksel 16y ago

it'd be cheaper for Novartis to just have these guys killed. Maybe after a dozen or so patent trolls end up dead, they might go looking for a safer market. Frankly I think patent law, should be like trademark law. You can patent anything, but you can't sue anyone who is not your direct competitor. Also it couldn't hurt, to have a clause that in order to be granted the patent, that you'd need to show a fully functional prototype.

gte910h 16y ago
>it'd be cheaper for Novartis to just have these guys killed Let's HOPE companies don't start assassinating people....but if they do, they confine themselves to patent trolls.
- praptak 16y ago
  Yeah, let's hope. Human life is important and all that. But just in case they do (which would be very unfortunate!), may they do so in a violent and spectacular way. Not that I advocate it (really!) but if that's to happen, then at least this should have a clearly shown moral.
- billswift 16y ago
  We need to create the Bun-Bun AI and program it against patent trolls as well as telemarketers. And lets throw in spammers while we're at it.
- nocman 16y ago
  I realize this is all intended to be in jest, but I really don't think it is appropriate to joke about companies killing people. There's really nothing funny about it (especially because it is an event that could very well happen in real life -- and I'm sure it has, even if no one was caught). Business can be extremely competetive, and not everyone in the game has the same convictions that most people do. I just don't think it is appropriate to joke about -- my two cents.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    There's a rule that says that any sentence will offend someone somewhere. But that does not mean those sentences should not be spoken, and I think that even in jest there is some wisdom in here. If I had an insurance company and someone came to me for life insurance and was a patent troll I'd find a way to shoo them out the door without a policy. I definitely see those that antagonize the most powerful companies on the planet in a head-on battle over these silly patents as riding a very fine line. No doubt people have gotten killed over these things in the past and it is not all bad to have a reminder flash up that your presence on this globe is 'optional' and that if you piss enough rich and very powerful people off you just might find yourself having an accident. Those people that are already heavy criminals have no remorse about this, those that are not rely on the courts to do their thing. But what if the courts no longer function? No doubt a larger number of people will take matters in to their own hands, if only out of frustration or desperation. That's one of the motivations that judges have to try to get things right, our whole legal fiction depends on the courts being perceived as 'working'. If that goes out the all bets are off. Some science fiction writers have gone to some effort to depict the kind of world that would result from that. There are no bad words, there are bad deeds.
lotusleaf1987 16y ago
Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate, but so often they are abused by the likes of Nathan Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures. Without patents, everything would essentially be a meritocracy. Either way, this is another example of how badly the patent system needs reform of some kind. Here is an article that makes a better argument than I have the time or capacity for: http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without-intellectual-property.aspx http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without-i...
- thwarted 16y ago
  I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate... It would be easier to see this argument if that is what actually occurred. I mean, I understand that argument, but it's been a bogus argument for a long time because it's not practiced and the people who say we need patents for that reason are not looking to actually execute on that.
  - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
    That's why the next word is "but".
    - thwarted 16y ago
      I know. I was attempting to add more specifics to why I think that argument is questionable, not to challenge your observations.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  > Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. There are several things wrong with your proposition. First, the food and beverage industries get by without patents because they leverage trade secrets, which is the exact sort of privatized knowledge that patents have long sought to prevent. Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters. The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less? The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.
SriniK 16y ago
I like the trademark law suggestion. It would be nice balance for everyone.
jacquesm 16y ago
If some open source advocate assassinated a patent troll I don't think it would reflect too well on the open source community.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  It would be counter-producive. Then again, harrassment, on the lines of what Anonymous did against ACS:Law, might help.
- vaksel 16y ago
  well Novartis isn't exactly known for being open source
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    No, it might actually redeem them in the eyes of some. But still, murder seems a little crude for want of a better word. Remind me to stay on your good side ;)
sbov 16y ago
Or how about having to show you've been trying to enforce your patent? An unenforced patent is little more than a ticking time bomb. They sit there being unenforced for years. Until, one day, a different company buys them and sues half the world.
wli 16y ago
It may be cheaper if Novartis wins. On the Complaint by Novartis against Webvention, http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/gov.uscourts.ded.44887.1.0.pdf http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/gov.uscour..., on page 7, Novartis asks for relief from the court. If Novartis wins, then Webvention would have to pay Novartis for the costs incurred for this action, attorneys fees, and whatever the court deems fit. Novartis could have just paid the $80k, but it seems that Novartis does not have an issue with their own attorneys working on this case, winning it (that's the key), and then getting compensated for their work and time by Webvention. That is how I am interpreting it.
Dove 16y ago
I find it amusing and disturbing that you have a great many upvotes for this comment, but that it is ambiguous whether this support is in favor of reforming the law or killing the trolls. Or possibly both.
dennisgorelik 16y ago
Shame on you guys who upvoted that comment. I despise patent trolls as much as the next guy, but killing people is way worse.

by vaksel 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago

>it'd be cheaper for Novartis to just have these guys killed Let's HOPE companies don't start assassinating people....but if they do, they confine themselves to patent trolls.

praptak 16y ago
Yeah, let's hope. Human life is important and all that. But just in case they do (which would be very unfortunate!), may they do so in a violent and spectacular way. Not that I advocate it (really!) but if that's to happen, then at least this should have a clearly shown moral.
billswift 16y ago
We need to create the Bun-Bun AI and program it against patent trolls as well as telemarketers. And lets throw in spammers while we're at it.
nocman 16y ago
I realize this is all intended to be in jest, but I really don't think it is appropriate to joke about companies killing people. There's really nothing funny about it (especially because it is an event that could very well happen in real life -- and I'm sure it has, even if no one was caught). Business can be extremely competetive, and not everyone in the game has the same convictions that most people do. I just don't think it is appropriate to joke about -- my two cents.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  There's a rule that says that any sentence will offend someone somewhere. But that does not mean those sentences should not be spoken, and I think that even in jest there is some wisdom in here. If I had an insurance company and someone came to me for life insurance and was a patent troll I'd find a way to shoo them out the door without a policy. I definitely see those that antagonize the most powerful companies on the planet in a head-on battle over these silly patents as riding a very fine line. No doubt people have gotten killed over these things in the past and it is not all bad to have a reminder flash up that your presence on this globe is 'optional' and that if you piss enough rich and very powerful people off you just might find yourself having an accident. Those people that are already heavy criminals have no remorse about this, those that are not rely on the courts to do their thing. But what if the courts no longer function? No doubt a larger number of people will take matters in to their own hands, if only out of frustration or desperation. That's one of the motivations that judges have to try to get things right, our whole legal fiction depends on the courts being perceived as 'working'. If that goes out the all bets are off. Some science fiction writers have gone to some effort to depict the kind of world that would result from that. There are no bad words, there are bad deeds.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago

Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate, but so often they are abused by the likes of Nathan Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures. Without patents, everything would essentially be a meritocracy. Either way, this is another example of how badly the patent system needs reform of some kind. Here is an article that makes a better argument than I have the time or capacity for: http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without-intellectual-property.aspx http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without-i...

thwarted 16y ago
I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate... It would be easier to see this argument if that is what actually occurred. I mean, I understand that argument, but it's been a bogus argument for a long time because it's not practiced and the people who say we need patents for that reason are not looking to actually execute on that.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  That's why the next word is "but".
  - thwarted 16y ago
    I know. I was attempting to add more specifics to why I think that argument is questionable, not to challenge your observations.
jemfinch 16y ago
> Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. There are several things wrong with your proposition. First, the food and beverage industries get by without patents because they leverage trade secrets, which is the exact sort of privatized knowledge that patents have long sought to prevent. Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters. The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less? The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.

SriniK 16y ago

I like the trademark law suggestion. It would be nice balance for everyone.

jacquesm 16y ago

If some open source advocate assassinated a patent troll I don't think it would reflect too well on the open source community.

cabalamat 16y ago
It would be counter-producive. Then again, harrassment, on the lines of what Anonymous did against ACS:Law, might help.
vaksel 16y ago
well Novartis isn't exactly known for being open source
- jacquesm 16y ago
  No, it might actually redeem them in the eyes of some. But still, murder seems a little crude for want of a better word. Remind me to stay on your good side ;)

sbov 16y ago

Or how about having to show you've been trying to enforce your patent? An unenforced patent is little more than a ticking time bomb. They sit there being unenforced for years. Until, one day, a different company buys them and sues half the world.

wli 16y ago

It may be cheaper if Novartis wins. On the Complaint by Novartis against Webvention, http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/gov.uscourts.ded.44887.1.0.pdf http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/gov.uscour..., on page 7, Novartis asks for relief from the court. If Novartis wins, then Webvention would have to pay Novartis for the costs incurred for this action, attorneys fees, and whatever the court deems fit. Novartis could have just paid the $80k, but it seems that Novartis does not have an issue with their own attorneys working on this case, winning it (that's the key), and then getting compensated for their work and time by Webvention. That is how I am interpreting it.

Dove 16y ago

I find it amusing and disturbing that you have a great many upvotes for this comment, but that it is ambiguous whether this support is in favor of reforming the law or killing the trolls. Or possibly both.

dennisgorelik 16y ago

Shame on you guys who upvoted that comment. I despise patent trolls as much as the next guy, but killing people is way worse.