8 ms·

Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.

83 points by Unregistered 15y ago

lhnn 15y ago
What a damned foolish patent. "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work" http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ Some hipster artist ("hipster" being an appropriate word here) sues a successful implementation of an offshoot of an idea he had 8 years ago, and then says, "As an artist myself, I feel that KickStarter may be hurting artist by focusing on 'donating money' rather than celebrating the artist for what they do. Their model does not build fan relationships but just continually asks for handouts." What a jerk. It's been said here before, but it's worth hitting again: "Ideas are a dime a dozen."
- jonathanjaeger 15y ago
  Patent complaining aside, that quote is off too. The point of Kickstarter is not to ask for handouts, but to offer incentives/rewards/pre-orders based on the amount you donate. If you don't like what you get for what you pay or donate, then choose a different tier or don't give any money.
  - enjalot 15y ago
    Or you want to see something happen but you only want to donate if everyone else does. They hack the tragedy of the commons, and it's been enough for me to support a couple projects.
    - jonathanjaeger 15y ago
      Good point. A lot of people come to Kickstarter because of Kickstarter and not because they want to donate to a friend who linked to their project from elsewhere.
- iamdave 15y ago
  I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been unpopular almost every time I've asked it: Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same mentality and resistance to new revenue models that's turning so many people off to the music and movie industries. Passion for the rhyme can be cheapened by feedback, and I think that's exactly what's happening with these 'artists'. They're looking at what other people are doing, seeing that it doesn't line up with how they think the industry should work, and then pull these statements out of their arses that it's killing their livelihood.
  - ralphsaunders 15y ago
    Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross. 99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it. That said, kickstarter certainly doesn't fit in that category, if anything it brings more paying work to designers/artists.
    - iamdave 15y ago
      * There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.* I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are? I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for the client) manner should mean the demonizing of an industry that allows a company to pick what they want, considering they're paying for it to represent their brand.
      - ralphsaunders 15y ago
ScottBurson 15y ago
if you file a patent, and someone else invents the same thing before the patent is issued, seems to me that should be prima facie evidence that the idea was obvious -- since at least in the U. S., patent applications are not published. Utopian dreaming aside, I've studied the patent a little, and it looks like Kickstarter has a problem.
mcantelon 15y ago
Given that the legal system's unlikely to change, as long as IP lobbyists pay off politicians, I'd like to see Anonymous take on the project of compiling the personal details of these parasites.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Personal details lead to personal relationships, which then can lead to innocents being hurt. Not cool.
  - dynamichype 15y ago
    Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period before they learn that they should avoid relationships with patent trolls for the same collateral risk reasons they avoid befriending gang members, child-molesters, and other anti-socials.
    - nickpinkston 15y ago
      This. We have a bubble in dubious relationships not being properly exposed: from patent trolls, to wealth financial scammers, etc. If you play with fire - be prepared to get burned. Let's hoping Anonymous and others can help burst this bubble.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      > Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period Oh, well, if we won't be hurting them forever, that's fine then.
      - dynamichype 15y ago
        One of the arguments made against repealing Jim Crow laws was the harm that would come to business owners in terms of infrastructure and other spending. There were many such businesses whose owners were not racist but who had invested in locations and buildings out of innocent compliance with the law and the demographic business climate it created. The judicial system makes accomodations for parenthood but it does not refuse to punish parents despite the fact that it is absolutely certain that such punishments will be detrimental to the child. By definition, disruptive social change is disruptive and punishment is punative. Surely that no collatoral innocents be harmed ever is too high a standard that favors both the status quo and protects bad actors?
meow 15y ago
But can the people building projects on kickstarter even be called artists ? They got to be called engineers or entrepreneurs... An awesome site and resource for funding being roughed up for protection money.
rkalla 15y ago
I am going to take an unpopular stance here... I think. When patents are enforced by big legal entities, we all scream foul, "Patents are meant to protect the little guy, not make lawyers rich!" Now we have a musician (a "little guy") suing a much loved successful startup... and we are still screaming, but instead of "Stop the lawyers!" we are yelling "Stop the hipster artists!" (at least lhnn was). If this musician was suing Real Player or Rhapsody or some entity we didn't all love, I wonder how different the response (here in the comments) would have been? if(!entity.isUnderdog()) complain(); else support(); I may be missing a case in there... :)
- phillmv 15y ago
  I think you may have misunderstood the average complaint. The complaint isn't about little guy vs big companies, it's about bullshit patents. A big company using a bullshit patent to squeeze out a little guy is just the most egregious example of bullshit. In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist", but it's more that he's a "douchebag artist" with a bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of us money by distracting people from doing awesome stuff.
  - rkalla 15y ago
    > In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist", but it's more that he's a "douchebag artist" with a bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of us money by distracting people from doing awesome stuff. All you did was validate my point (as annoyed is that is going to make you)... this sentence is dripping with preconceptions about both the person trying to assert their patent and the patent itself, neither of which I assume you are intimately familiar with. If I took the identical scenario and replaced "douchebag artist" with Sergey Brin or Steve Jobs and left all other facts the same (the same patent, the same timeline, the same lawsuit) this discussion looks A LOT different. Now you have people asserting the patent validity and how it overlaps with X and infringes on Y, but with some easily dismissable artist at the helm, most people have the same response you do -- shove him into a socially defined box and throw it all out the window as bullshit antics of some random douchebag wearing a hemp necklace. All of these discussions are bullshit - they produce nothing except strife and accomplish nothing.
spolsky 15y ago
Kickstarter is lucky that the America Invents Act that Congress just rammed through includes a porkbarrel clause that Sen. Chuck Schumer stuck in for the banks, making it much much easier to challenge business method patents in the finance industry. (Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b967fda5-d0a4-4fbd-aad8-1be025ad172b http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b967fda5...) "For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘covered business method patent’’ means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service"
nickpinkston 15y ago
This should remind everyone to pressure the White House to respond to the very successful: "Petition to End Software Patents". https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-patent-office-cease-issuing-software-patents/vvNslSTq https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-pat...
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Not very applicable since this isn't a software patent.
  - nickpinkston 15y ago
    Not sure technically, but software patents are a subset of methods patents (which I'm guessing this is), but at least very similar to the point where I think it's very applicable to this. The discussion needs to keep going - that petition was a great success, but I'm doubtful that the administration dares to talk about it in anything other than platitudes.
    - dangrossman 15y ago
      They're two separate issues. Business method patents purely claim methods of doing business. Software patents claim the invention of new machines, they're a subset of traditional patents, and do not overlap with business method patents. Software patents are almost always framed as a machine which carries out the algorithm or process as to be patentable the invention must be more than a mathematical formula acting on itself.
    - drgath 15y ago
      The definition of "software patent" is about as misused as "impeachment" or "HTML5". Ending software patents fixes very little with what is wrong with the patent industry because most of what people assume are software patents, likely aren't. Take the Lodesys patent debate for example, at least one of those (#7,222,078) wouldn't be considered a "software patent". PG says Amazon's 1-click checkout patent isn't a "software patent" (http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html). Software patents are not the issue.
jschuur 15y ago
'a former musician'. That tells you pretty much all you need to know about this guy and his motives.
mahcode 15y ago
When will the USPTO put a stop on such BS patents, seriously! One day we will run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent... and then what? Patents are meant to encourage entrepreneurship... not fund court rooms and judges' salaries.
- nickolai 15y ago
  >One day we will run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent... and then what? Then a countdown to the expiration of the last patent will start. And then we will enter an era of freedom of innovation. You will be free to take any design you like and improve on it without fear of being sued into oblivion if your design sees any kind of success.

83 points by Unregistered 15y ago

lhnn 15y ago

What a damned foolish patent. "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work" http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ Some hipster artist ("hipster" being an appropriate word here) sues a successful implementation of an offshoot of an idea he had 8 years ago, and then says, "As an artist myself, I feel that KickStarter may be hurting artist by focusing on 'donating money' rather than celebrating the artist for what they do. Their model does not build fan relationships but just continually asks for handouts." What a jerk. It's been said here before, but it's worth hitting again: "Ideas are a dime a dozen."

jonathanjaeger 15y ago
Patent complaining aside, that quote is off too. The point of Kickstarter is not to ask for handouts, but to offer incentives/rewards/pre-orders based on the amount you donate. If you don't like what you get for what you pay or donate, then choose a different tier or don't give any money.
- enjalot 15y ago
  Or you want to see something happen but you only want to donate if everyone else does. They hack the tragedy of the commons, and it's been enough for me to support a couple projects.
  - jonathanjaeger 15y ago
    Good point. A lot of people come to Kickstarter because of Kickstarter and not because they want to donate to a friend who linked to their project from elsewhere.
iamdave 15y ago
I'm sure this is going to be a very unpopular stance, because it's been unpopular almost every time I've asked it: Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same mentality and resistance to new revenue models that's turning so many people off to the music and movie industries. Passion for the rhyme can be cheapened by feedback, and I think that's exactly what's happening with these 'artists'. They're looking at what other people are doing, seeing that it doesn't line up with how they think the industry should work, and then pull these statements out of their arses that it's killing their livelihood.
- ralphsaunders 15y ago
  Design and art aren't really viewed by most designers and artists as a commodity, which is what sites similar to 99 designs try to put accross. 99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it. That said, kickstarter certainly doesn't fit in that category, if anything it brings more paying work to designers/artists.
  - iamdave 15y ago
    * There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.* I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are? I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for the client) manner should mean the demonizing of an industry that allows a company to pick what they want, considering they're paying for it to represent their brand.
    - ralphsaunders 15y ago

ScottBurson 15y ago

if you file a patent, and someone else invents the same thing before the patent is issued, seems to me that should be prima facie evidence that the idea was obvious -- since at least in the U. S., patent applications are not published. Utopian dreaming aside, I've studied the patent a little, and it looks like Kickstarter has a problem.

mcantelon 15y ago

Given that the legal system's unlikely to change, as long as IP lobbyists pay off politicians, I'd like to see Anonymous take on the project of compiling the personal details of these parasites.

sixtofour 15y ago
Personal details lead to personal relationships, which then can lead to innocents being hurt. Not cool.
- dynamichype 15y ago
  Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period before they learn that they should avoid relationships with patent trolls for the same collateral risk reasons they avoid befriending gang members, child-molesters, and other anti-socials.
  - nickpinkston 15y ago
    This. We have a bubble in dubious relationships not being properly exposed: from patent trolls, to wealth financial scammers, etc. If you play with fire - be prepared to get burned. Let's hoping Anonymous and others can help burst this bubble.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    > Innocents will only be hurt during the transitional period Oh, well, if we won't be hurting them forever, that's fine then.
    - dynamichype 15y ago
      One of the arguments made against repealing Jim Crow laws was the harm that would come to business owners in terms of infrastructure and other spending. There were many such businesses whose owners were not racist but who had invested in locations and buildings out of innocent compliance with the law and the demographic business climate it created. The judicial system makes accomodations for parenthood but it does not refuse to punish parents despite the fact that it is absolutely certain that such punishments will be detrimental to the child. By definition, disruptive social change is disruptive and punishment is punative. Surely that no collatoral innocents be harmed ever is too high a standard that favors both the status quo and protects bad actors?

meow 15y ago

But can the people building projects on kickstarter even be called artists ? They got to be called engineers or entrepreneurs... An awesome site and resource for funding being roughed up for protection money.

rkalla 15y ago

I am going to take an unpopular stance here... I think. When patents are enforced by big legal entities, we all scream foul, "Patents are meant to protect the little guy, not make lawyers rich!" Now we have a musician (a "little guy") suing a much loved successful startup... and we are still screaming, but instead of "Stop the lawyers!" we are yelling "Stop the hipster artists!" (at least lhnn was). If this musician was suing Real Player or Rhapsody or some entity we didn't all love, I wonder how different the response (here in the comments) would have been? if(!entity.isUnderdog()) complain(); else support(); I may be missing a case in there... :)

phillmv 15y ago
I think you may have misunderstood the average complaint. The complaint isn't about little guy vs big companies, it's about bullshit patents. A big company using a bullshit patent to squeeze out a little guy is just the most egregious example of bullshit. In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist", but it's more that he's a "douchebag artist" with a bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of us money by distracting people from doing awesome stuff.
- rkalla 15y ago
  > In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist", but it's more that he's a "douchebag artist" with a bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of us money by distracting people from doing awesome stuff. All you did was validate my point (as annoyed is that is going to make you)... this sentence is dripping with preconceptions about both the person trying to assert their patent and the patent itself, neither of which I assume you are intimately familiar with. If I took the identical scenario and replaced "douchebag artist" with Sergey Brin or Steve Jobs and left all other facts the same (the same patent, the same timeline, the same lawsuit) this discussion looks A LOT different. Now you have people asserting the patent validity and how it overlaps with X and infringes on Y, but with some easily dismissable artist at the helm, most people have the same response you do -- shove him into a socially defined box and throw it all out the window as bullshit antics of some random douchebag wearing a hemp necklace. All of these discussions are bullshit - they produce nothing except strife and accomplish nothing.

spolsky 15y ago

Kickstarter is lucky that the America Invents Act that Congress just rammed through includes a porkbarrel clause that Sen. Chuck Schumer stuck in for the banks, making it much much easier to challenge business method patents in the finance industry. (Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b967fda5-d0a4-4fbd-aad8-1be025ad172b http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b967fda5...) "For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘covered business method patent’’ means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service"

nickpinkston 15y ago

This should remind everyone to pressure the White House to respond to the very successful: "Petition to End Software Patents". https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-patent-office-cease-issuing-software-patents/vvNslSTq https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-pat...

dangrossman 15y ago
Not very applicable since this isn't a software patent.
- nickpinkston 15y ago
  Not sure technically, but software patents are a subset of methods patents (which I'm guessing this is), but at least very similar to the point where I think it's very applicable to this. The discussion needs to keep going - that petition was a great success, but I'm doubtful that the administration dares to talk about it in anything other than platitudes.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    They're two separate issues. Business method patents purely claim methods of doing business. Software patents claim the invention of new machines, they're a subset of traditional patents, and do not overlap with business method patents. Software patents are almost always framed as a machine which carries out the algorithm or process as to be patentable the invention must be more than a mathematical formula acting on itself.
  - drgath 15y ago
    The definition of "software patent" is about as misused as "impeachment" or "HTML5". Ending software patents fixes very little with what is wrong with the patent industry because most of what people assume are software patents, likely aren't. Take the Lodesys patent debate for example, at least one of those (#7,222,078) wouldn't be considered a "software patent". PG says Amazon's 1-click checkout patent isn't a "software patent" (http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html). Software patents are not the issue.

jschuur 15y ago

'a former musician'. That tells you pretty much all you need to know about this guy and his motives.

mahcode 15y ago

When will the USPTO put a stop on such BS patents, seriously! One day we will run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent... and then what? Patents are meant to encourage entrepreneurship... not fund court rooms and judges' salaries.

nickolai 15y ago
>One day we will run out of colors, layouts and "business models" to patent... and then what? Then a countdown to the expiration of the last patent will start. And then we will enter an era of freedom of innovation. You will be free to take any design you like and improve on it without fear of being sued into oblivion if your design sees any kind of success.