6 ms·

I'll be completely honest. Prior to this I disliked patent trolls in a sort of abstract way, but now, I have a visceral feeling of disgust just thinking about p

by Spyro7 15y ago

I'll be completely honest. Prior to this I disliked patent trolls in a sort of abstract way, but now, I have a visceral feeling of disgust just thinking about patent trolls. Lodsys in particular seems to have no shame. I wonder if a few more of these higher profile lawsuits might pull the general public's attention from whatever the latest reality TV show is. Maybe then the political system could do something useful to stop the patent lawsuit insanity.

biturd 15y ago
Not until Lodsys goes after Kim Kardashian for violation of a patent they hold on how to screw a lid on perfume. As soon as someone breaks away from tech and takes it to pop culture, we may actually see some changes. Don't mess with the publics ability to indulge in kids in tiaras or the brand of large booty they are into or there will be outrage to answer to.
- phunel 15y ago
  Wouldn't count on it: http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-kim-kardashian-old-navy_n.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-kim-kar...
- alecbenzer 15y ago
  I think that phenomenon might have more to do with the fact that the general public doesn't understand technology well enough to know when enforcing a patent on something (or granting one) is and isn't ridiculous. I forget the details, and I might be wrong, but I think with the whole Microsoft XML file format suit thing, the suit boiled down to a company claiming they had a patent on using XML for document type file formats. But that's the whole point of XML, to be used as a general purpose markup language, to markup whatever you want. It's ridiculous to attempt to patent that when it's the whole point of XML to begin with. But the general public doesn't really know what XML is or what its for, so no one realizes how crazy it is. If, on the other hand, someone tried to patent putting a doorknob on a door that leads into a postal office, as opposed to some other kind of building, everyone would realize how ridiculous it was. Because people know what doors and doorknobs and postal offices are.
  - blasdel 15y ago
    You do forget the details — that particular situation with what Microsoft called "Custom XML" was rather less absurd than you remember: http://milan.kupcevic.net/custom-xml-microsoft-office-word-data-store-i4i-patent-5787449-msdn/ http://milan.kupcevic.net/custom-xml-microsoft-office-word-d... It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem. It may be a software patent and have all the attendant problems, but it is at least an invention and not pure bullshit. Plus the plaintiff isn't in any way a patent troll — they were a real company with a shipping product that Microsoft was well aware of when they integrated "their" feature into Office. This case is to software patent reform as "Hot Coffee" is to tort reform — it's almost perfectly constructed to spark nerd rage when initially described, except that the facts of the matter are entirely opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurant...
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem. XML is called extensible and has things like namespaces exactly for that purpose.
hn_decay 15y ago
Why should they have shame? This is exactly how the system works. They are abusing the system in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft have been, the latter just seem to have a soft spot in some people's hearts. We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.
- daeken 15y ago
  > We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in. I couldn't agree more. I fundamentally disagree with what they do, how the patent system works, etc, but I think these malicious actors will serve to take down the system. The more patent suits of these sort go up, the better I believe the odds are that we'll end up with some sort of sanity. Or we'll end up with more bullshit legislation which does nothing but make it harder to do legitimate business. We'll see.
  - btilly 15y ago
    We'll wind up with BS legislation as vested interests in the current system try to maintain their power even as protections are added. As an example of the likely result, see the America Invents Act. Which changes us from first to invent to first to file. And then in section 18 carves out a big patent exception for the financial industry (because they had enough lobbyists). BTW if you thought that our current system was bad, wait until it is irrelevant whether someone else previously shipped software product with your "invention" in it.
  - cpearce 15y ago
    I had wondered if this was the angle Google's legal team were taking, given that they only made a half hearted attempt in the Nortel patent auction.
- podperson 15y ago
  OK I'll bite and jump to defend Microsoft. Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? (I _hate_ to be defending Microsoft. But I can't recall Microsoft having done this.) Edit: I did find this: http://androinica.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-nook-color/ http://androinica.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-no... I don't mind MS going after large targets with obvious infringements, but a lot of the alleged infringements are ridiculous. It seems to me that the complexity of modern hardware and software has made patents very difficult to administer, but then the question remains: would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?
tzs 15y ago
Considering that one of the biggest names in computing in the eyes of the public (IBM) in extremely pro-software patents, that's not likely to happen. IBM says: Given the reality that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered, it is difficult for software developers to resort to secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms—which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development. That's from their brief to the Supreme Court for the Bilski case.
- modeless 15y ago
  Patent protection has fueled the growth of open source? That's the funniest thing I've read all year.
  - tzs 15y ago
    Then you should get a copy of the full brief and read it, as you'll probably get a good laugh from more of it, like where they say software patents encourage the adoption of standards on the web and net.
- josephcooney 15y ago
  I think the general public would stab their local IBM Global Services consultant in the eye with a pen if they thought it would help their beloved Angry Birds in the patent dispute.
- palish 15y ago
  Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. ... Right ...
  - sjs 15y ago
    In theory it seems like it should though doesn't it? Maybe if we did something to fix the problems it wouldn't be so bad. Right now it's hard for little guys to get patents, partly because it costs a lot of money and time (lawyers are expensive). It's also too easy to patent trivial things so big companies can patent the simplest things at a relatively minuscule cost for them.

by Spyro7 15y ago

biturd 15y ago

Not until Lodsys goes after Kim Kardashian for violation of a patent they hold on how to screw a lid on perfume. As soon as someone breaks away from tech and takes it to pop culture, we may actually see some changes. Don't mess with the publics ability to indulge in kids in tiaras or the brand of large booty they are into or there will be outrage to answer to.

phunel 15y ago
Wouldn't count on it: http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-kim-kardashian-old-navy_n.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-kim-kar...
alecbenzer 15y ago
I think that phenomenon might have more to do with the fact that the general public doesn't understand technology well enough to know when enforcing a patent on something (or granting one) is and isn't ridiculous. I forget the details, and I might be wrong, but I think with the whole Microsoft XML file format suit thing, the suit boiled down to a company claiming they had a patent on using XML for document type file formats. But that's the whole point of XML, to be used as a general purpose markup language, to markup whatever you want. It's ridiculous to attempt to patent that when it's the whole point of XML to begin with. But the general public doesn't really know what XML is or what its for, so no one realizes how crazy it is. If, on the other hand, someone tried to patent putting a doorknob on a door that leads into a postal office, as opposed to some other kind of building, everyone would realize how ridiculous it was. Because people know what doors and doorknobs and postal offices are.
- blasdel 15y ago
  You do forget the details — that particular situation with what Microsoft called "Custom XML" was rather less absurd than you remember: http://milan.kupcevic.net/custom-xml-microsoft-office-word-data-store-i4i-patent-5787449-msdn/ http://milan.kupcevic.net/custom-xml-microsoft-office-word-d... It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem. It may be a software patent and have all the attendant problems, but it is at least an invention and not pure bullshit. Plus the plaintiff isn't in any way a patent troll — they were a real company with a shipping product that Microsoft was well aware of when they integrated "their" feature into Office. This case is to software patent reform as "Hot Coffee" is to tort reform — it's almost perfectly constructed to spark nerd rage when initially described, except that the facts of the matter are entirely opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurant...
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    It's not at all about just using XML as a file format, but about being able to build your own private business extensions to a vendor's (Microsoft's) file format and ecosystem. XML is called extensible and has things like namespaces exactly for that purpose.

hn_decay 15y ago

Why should they have shame? This is exactly how the system works. They are abusing the system in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft have been, the latter just seem to have a soft spot in some people's hearts. We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.

daeken 15y ago
> We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in. I couldn't agree more. I fundamentally disagree with what they do, how the patent system works, etc, but I think these malicious actors will serve to take down the system. The more patent suits of these sort go up, the better I believe the odds are that we'll end up with some sort of sanity. Or we'll end up with more bullshit legislation which does nothing but make it harder to do legitimate business. We'll see.
- btilly 15y ago
  We'll wind up with BS legislation as vested interests in the current system try to maintain their power even as protections are added. As an example of the likely result, see the America Invents Act. Which changes us from first to invent to first to file. And then in section 18 carves out a big patent exception for the financial industry (because they had enough lobbyists). BTW if you thought that our current system was bad, wait until it is irrelevant whether someone else previously shipped software product with your "invention" in it.
- cpearce 15y ago
  I had wondered if this was the angle Google's legal team were taking, given that they only made a half hearted attempt in the Nortel patent auction.
podperson 15y ago
OK I'll bite and jump to defend Microsoft. Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? (I _hate_ to be defending Microsoft. But I can't recall Microsoft having done this.) Edit: I did find this: http://androinica.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-nook-color/ http://androinica.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-no... I don't mind MS going after large targets with obvious infringements, but a lot of the alleged infringements are ridiculous. It seems to me that the complexity of modern hardware and software has made patents very difficult to administer, but then the question remains: would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?

tzs 15y ago

Considering that one of the biggest names in computing in the eyes of the public (IBM) in extremely pro-software patents, that's not likely to happen. IBM says: Given the reality that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered, it is difficult for software developers to resort to secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms—which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development. That's from their brief to the Supreme Court for the Bilski case.

modeless 15y ago
Patent protection has fueled the growth of open source? That's the funniest thing I've read all year.
- tzs 15y ago
  Then you should get a copy of the full brief and read it, as you'll probably get a good laugh from more of it, like where they say software patents encourage the adoption of standards on the web and net.
josephcooney 15y ago
I think the general public would stab their local IBM Global Services consultant in the eye with a pen if they thought it would help their beloved Angry Birds in the patent dispute.
palish 15y ago
Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. ... Right ...
- sjs 15y ago
  In theory it seems like it should though doesn't it? Maybe if we did something to fix the problems it wouldn't be so bad. Right now it's hard for little guys to get patents, partly because it costs a lot of money and time (lawyers are expensive). It's also too easy to patent trivial things so big companies can patent the simplest things at a relatively minuscule cost for them.