10 ms·

I really don't like saying this, but here it goes: Don't hate the player, hate the game. We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.

by viggity 15y ago

nodemaker 15y ago
When the player is a huge corporation consisting of numerous layers of management, it is very hard not to hate them. This player will most likely also lobby aggressively to thwart any attempts at reforming the patent system since it is one of its few remaining sources of revenue.
sparkie 15y ago
Absolutely. It's easy to bash at Yahoo, but we can't forget that while Facebook (and many other players, including Yahoo) are using one hand undermine the "intellectual property" of other companies, they're using their other hand to try and protect their own IP using the same laws. Take this absurd Facebook patent as an example >System and method for dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network (US2008040673). While the situation is different, as Facebook aren't suing anyone (yet), we can imagine if the roles were reversed, the story might be a little different. Why else would they file for patents if their intent wasn't to defend "their ideas." If we're calling out Yahoo's patents as junk, we should be doing the same for facebook and the rest, otherwise we're turning a bad system of "who dunnit first" into an even worse one, a popularity contest.
- simonw 15y ago
  > Why else would they file for patents if their intent wasn't to defend "their ideas." As the original article said, most SV web companies claim to file patents as a defensive measure - so if they get sued by someone else, they can hit back. Suing first is extremely bad form. > If we're calling out Yahoo's patents as junk, we should be doing the same for facebook and the rest I don't see anyone saying that Facebook's patents are fine and Yahoo!'s are junk - Yahoo! are being criticised because they're attempting to enforce their junk patents. If Facebook attempted to force theirs they would get exactly the same flack for it.
  - fluidcruft 15y ago
    NPR this morning they noted that Yahoo did something similar previously with their search patents when Google went IPO and ended up with some Google stock, and of course Facebook also recently went IPO. So, maybe this action is not quite as unusual as everyone is pretending it is.
alsothings 15y ago
I agree completely. While Y! is clearly acting in desperation, this is an obvious and predictable act given the legal system in which they operate and patent portfolio they have. We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected, but I the think anger is better focused on systemic reform then getting angry at any single company's actions. In a system of laws, what else should anyone expect but a legal entity to act in what it sees as its own best interest. Software patents need to end; working to that end is the best way to deal with this sort of event.
- gaius 15y ago
  We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected Then you are demanding that the board neglect its fiduciary responsibilities and go to jail.
  - JoachimSchipper 15y ago
    Has that ever happened over something like this?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - nikcub 15y ago
      god no
  - chalst 15y ago
    The almost-myth of the fiduciary responsibilty of company executives to be irresponsible. I wrote elsewhere [1]: > A point about the morality of companies angle: the so-called "fiduciary duty" of companies that is an overriding duty to maximise shareholder returns within the constraints of the law above all other ends is a legal obligation in only a few countries. In most countries, including most states in the US, executives have a legal responsibility to be honest and open about their performance and honest (if not very open) about their strategy, but have no legal obligation to prefer a more profitable course of action over another, which is obviously right since there is usually no knowable fact of the matter about whether one business plan will turn out to be more profitable than another. > In short, the idea that companies have a moral obligation to act immorally if it pays is mostly or always a myth. There is no chance that Yahoo executives would go to jail if they decided not to pursue a cursed-earth patent troll strategy. Fiduciary duty is about executives not putting their personal interests before that of the shareholders. It is not even obviously in the company's interest, what they are doing. If cash-rich FB refuses to settle, all 10 patents get invalidated, and Yahoo has to pay heavy legal fees, then Yahoo is left with a smaller warchest of patents, and one whose firepower has been seen to be lacking. Does the quiet period make that such an unlikely outcome? [1]: https://plus.google.com/u/0/103703080789076472131/posts/K74aSprXFVn https://plus.google.com/u/0/103703080789076472131/posts/K74a...
mmaunder 15y ago
+1. Nothing more to add. Other than: I think we're stuck with the current system for at least a decade because we just "did" patent reform which was really just a dog and pony show for the unwashed masses.
guard-of-terra 15y ago
They don't have to play this game. Once they dared to: start your hate machine.
- wladimir 15y ago
  It's a chicken-egg problem. The game will only stop once people stop playing it, but people won't stop playing it until the game stops. And you can be sure that companies once they have lots of patents will lobby mercilessly to keep the current "game" in place. Who wants to stop playing when they feel they are winning? Apart from some sudden massive outbreak of sanity, there is no way out.
  - guard-of-terra 15y ago
    But at least we can try and make them miserable.
  - shmerl 15y ago
    No, no one forces them to play it. The fact that they play it is a good reason to disrespect them already.
    - angersock 15y ago
      The fact that they play it, and perhaps incidentally help show how fucking stupid the whole system is, is more respectable than armchair quarterbacking. (and yes, their shareholders and executive force them to play it.)
barrynolan 15y ago
True. Very true. They are in a weak position, and this is their hand. It may take all out war, and an overwhelming of the legal v startup ecosystem, before sense returns. Akin to the opinion piece in the NYTimes "Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System" over the weekend.
tytso 15y ago
The more we have companies blatantly showing how unproductive and how software patents are actually hurting innovation, the more likely it is that change will happen. Just remember though that right now the pharmaceutical companies are massively outspending the technology sector as far as lobbying Congress. (A Senator is a wonderful thing --- everyone should own one!) As a Google employee I can contribute to Google NetPAC. I'm not sure what opportunities exist towards donations to organizations that directly lobby Congress. The EFF is an advocacy organization, which is a good start, but they are not a lobbying organization per se. It's a horrible system and it's not a productive way to use money as far as society is concerned, but unfortunately, it's the way the game is structured, and if you don't play the game, you'll get run over by those who do....
- endersshadow 15y ago
  Companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM which hold a huge number of software patents and aren't exactly keen on seeing that system go away, either. But yes, big pharma relies almost exclusively on patents to recoup R&D costs.
  - Jach 15y ago
    R&D costs actually make up a pretty small portion of the pie. It's unclear what if anything patents are doing to recoup those since they're all just copying each other with designer drugs that are just slightly different enough to not violate someone else's patent. The pharma industry is probably a better example than the software industry for why patents suck. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf
    - tytso 15y ago
      It doesn't matter if it's a better example for why patents suck. They are spending more than we are lobbying congress to keep the current patent regime in place.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
wpietri 15y ago
A) I'm perfectly ok with hating the player and the game. Patent reform would be great, but you can't legislate sanity or neighborliness. B) This is not the game. As Fred Wilson explains, web company patents have been thought of as defensive. If this triggers a wave of patent lawsuit bullshit, then everybody will end up poorer. Except the lawyers, of course.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Mutually Assured Litigation.
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    MALware?
    - yannis 15y ago
      MALwar?
prof_hobart 15y ago
How about hating both? Yes, current patent law is broken, but that doesn't mean that Y! have to use it. If this was a defensive move against a patent claim from Facebook, I'd have some sympathy. But as far as I can tell, it isn't. So I don't.
jazzsax 15y ago
what sort of substantive analysis of the patents in this case have you done to justify claiming that this case indicates we need patent reform?
kd5bjo 15y ago
It seems that a lot of people think that we need substantive patent reform, but what I haven't heard is any real proposal except for scrapping the entire system (or possibly just for software). I've put together the basics of a proposal here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698637 I'm sure that it has a lot of problems, but we need to start having the discussion of how to fix the system, instead of just whether or not it needs fixing.
- angersock 15y ago
  I replied to a couple points in your thread. Long story short, kill patents, kill copyright, keep trademark.
  - PassTheAmmo 15y ago
    There would be huge problems with killing copyright IMHO. Most open source licenses are based on it for example. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-partys-copyright-reform-cannon-could-sink-copyleft.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-party...
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      Wouldnt it then shift from being a copyright enforcement issue to a contract/license enforcement issue? I.e. you agreed to share your source code if you distribute, but now you didn't, so sue city?
      - kd5bjo 15y ago
        But if there is no copyright, there is no need to license the software, you can just copy it without agreeing to anything. That's what it means for something to be in the public domain. Contracts are only valid if there is an exchange of value; you could reasonably argue that there is no value in being granted a right you already have.
    - cabalamat 15y ago
olaf 15y ago
It's not very effective to hate. I would prefer "fight/act effectively against the people who make/are responsible for the rules of the (dirty) game."
shmerl 15y ago
Not really. Those who act unethically bear the responsibility, and saying that since system is broken it's OK to abuse it just doesn't cut it. With that said, of course the system needs to be blamed (and changed) as well.
- angersock 15y ago
  What's unethical about this? Seriously, where is the moral imperative that says "Thou Shalt Not Patent Troll"?
  - shmerl 15y ago
    Seriously, isn't it obvious? Look at the purpose of the patent law. It's supposed to promote innovation for the benefit of the society, or how it formally sounds: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Software patents do exactly the opposite. They not only don't promote any innovation or progress, they stifle it.
    - angersock 15y ago
      Thank you for elaborating on your position. Upvoted for content. That said, note that this isn't an abuse of the system--it is very much using it to the letter of the law. Note further that, at least in America it would seem, we place a very high value on the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the law. I still think there isn't a fully developed moral argument here, but at least you've elaborated on your position. For what it's worth, I think the rough sketch of the argument would go something like: scarcity is Bad, knowledge promotes nonscarcity therefore Good, patents intended to promote knowledge therefore Good, wording of patents allows companies to act to decrease knowledge there Bad. I just wanted to make sure you had a better backing than the usual "Oh noes patents are teh evil and the abuses you see". If we're ever going to fix this mess, we need to make sure our ideology and reasoning is in line and clear.
      - 15y ago
nextparadigms 15y ago
They had a choice - not to use those patents they know are worthless, to make money from FB. So yeah, I'm also perfectly fine with hating the player in this case, too.
- angersock 15y ago
  It's just business. They have a responsibility to their shareholders.
asdfasdf4321 15y ago
Not to mention it's BS to pick on Yahoo. Intellectual Ventures? Mirosoft threatening Amazon/numerous hardware manufacturers to pay tithes because Linux infringes on unspecified patents? Seriously, this guy is an idiot. It's been happening forever, but usually the threat has been from the big guy.
bborud 15y ago
Patent reform is not going to happen until people start hating the player. Whenever someone says "don't hate the player" we end up a little bit further away from patent reform.
nilsbunger 15y ago
For reform, the trick is to find a solution that works at two ends of the spectrum: 1) A pharma company spends $1B on R&D to develop a drug and get FDA approval. If someone could knock off the resulting compound at 10 cents per pill, we wouldn't have the drug. 2) Software companies, where there are hundreds of potential patents to file or infringe on, and there is tons of iterative evolution.
- nilsbunger 15y ago
  Maybe reform could happen by fixing how damages are awarded? Like if you infringe on some patent that is a small part of a product, you pay a $100 fine or something? That would remove the financial incentive to sue unless you can prove someone's whole business is built on your ideas...
slowpoke 15y ago
>Don't hate the player, hate the game. In case you missed it, it's the players who make the game and keep it running - a self-sustaining spiral of endless bullshit.

I really don't like saying this, but here it goes: Don't hate the player, hate the game. We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.

by viggity 15y ago

I really don't like saying this, but here it goes: Don't hate the player, hate the game. We need real, substantive patent reform in this country.

nodemaker 15y ago

When the player is a huge corporation consisting of numerous layers of management, it is very hard not to hate them. This player will most likely also lobby aggressively to thwart any attempts at reforming the patent system since it is one of its few remaining sources of revenue.

sparkie 15y ago

Absolutely. It's easy to bash at Yahoo, but we can't forget that while Facebook (and many other players, including Yahoo) are using one hand undermine the "intellectual property" of other companies, they're using their other hand to try and protect their own IP using the same laws. Take this absurd Facebook patent as an example >System and method for dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network (US2008040673). While the situation is different, as Facebook aren't suing anyone (yet), we can imagine if the roles were reversed, the story might be a little different. Why else would they file for patents if their intent wasn't to defend "their ideas." If we're calling out Yahoo's patents as junk, we should be doing the same for facebook and the rest, otherwise we're turning a bad system of "who dunnit first" into an even worse one, a popularity contest.

simonw 15y ago
> Why else would they file for patents if their intent wasn't to defend "their ideas." As the original article said, most SV web companies claim to file patents as a defensive measure - so if they get sued by someone else, they can hit back. Suing first is extremely bad form. > If we're calling out Yahoo's patents as junk, we should be doing the same for facebook and the rest I don't see anyone saying that Facebook's patents are fine and Yahoo!'s are junk - Yahoo! are being criticised because they're attempting to enforce their junk patents. If Facebook attempted to force theirs they would get exactly the same flack for it.
- fluidcruft 15y ago
  NPR this morning they noted that Yahoo did something similar previously with their search patents when Google went IPO and ended up with some Google stock, and of course Facebook also recently went IPO. So, maybe this action is not quite as unusual as everyone is pretending it is.

alsothings 15y ago

I agree completely. While Y! is clearly acting in desperation, this is an obvious and predictable act given the legal system in which they operate and patent portfolio they have. We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected, but I the think anger is better focused on systemic reform then getting angry at any single company's actions. In a system of laws, what else should anyone expect but a legal entity to act in what it sees as its own best interest. Software patents need to end; working to that end is the best way to deal with this sort of event.

gaius 15y ago
We can (and should!) demand that they not do the expected Then you are demanding that the board neglect its fiduciary responsibilities and go to jail.
- JoachimSchipper 15y ago
  Has that ever happened over something like this?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - nikcub 15y ago
    god no
- chalst 15y ago
  The almost-myth of the fiduciary responsibilty of company executives to be irresponsible. I wrote elsewhere [1]: > A point about the morality of companies angle: the so-called "fiduciary duty" of companies that is an overriding duty to maximise shareholder returns within the constraints of the law above all other ends is a legal obligation in only a few countries. In most countries, including most states in the US, executives have a legal responsibility to be honest and open about their performance and honest (if not very open) about their strategy, but have no legal obligation to prefer a more profitable course of action over another, which is obviously right since there is usually no knowable fact of the matter about whether one business plan will turn out to be more profitable than another. > In short, the idea that companies have a moral obligation to act immorally if it pays is mostly or always a myth. There is no chance that Yahoo executives would go to jail if they decided not to pursue a cursed-earth patent troll strategy. Fiduciary duty is about executives not putting their personal interests before that of the shareholders. It is not even obviously in the company's interest, what they are doing. If cash-rich FB refuses to settle, all 10 patents get invalidated, and Yahoo has to pay heavy legal fees, then Yahoo is left with a smaller warchest of patents, and one whose firepower has been seen to be lacking. Does the quiet period make that such an unlikely outcome? [1]: https://plus.google.com/u/0/103703080789076472131/posts/K74aSprXFVn https://plus.google.com/u/0/103703080789076472131/posts/K74a...

mmaunder 15y ago

+1. Nothing more to add. Other than: I think we're stuck with the current system for at least a decade because we just "did" patent reform which was really just a dog and pony show for the unwashed masses.

guard-of-terra 15y ago

They don't have to play this game. Once they dared to: start your hate machine.

wladimir 15y ago
It's a chicken-egg problem. The game will only stop once people stop playing it, but people won't stop playing it until the game stops. And you can be sure that companies once they have lots of patents will lobby mercilessly to keep the current "game" in place. Who wants to stop playing when they feel they are winning? Apart from some sudden massive outbreak of sanity, there is no way out.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  But at least we can try and make them miserable.
- shmerl 15y ago
  No, no one forces them to play it. The fact that they play it is a good reason to disrespect them already.
  - angersock 15y ago
    The fact that they play it, and perhaps incidentally help show how fucking stupid the whole system is, is more respectable than armchair quarterbacking. (and yes, their shareholders and executive force them to play it.)

barrynolan 15y ago

True. Very true. They are in a weak position, and this is their hand. It may take all out war, and an overwhelming of the legal v startup ecosystem, before sense returns. Akin to the opinion piece in the NYTimes "Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System" over the weekend.

tytso 15y ago

The more we have companies blatantly showing how unproductive and how software patents are actually hurting innovation, the more likely it is that change will happen. Just remember though that right now the pharmaceutical companies are massively outspending the technology sector as far as lobbying Congress. (A Senator is a wonderful thing --- everyone should own one!) As a Google employee I can contribute to Google NetPAC. I'm not sure what opportunities exist towards donations to organizations that directly lobby Congress. The EFF is an advocacy organization, which is a good start, but they are not a lobbying organization per se. It's a horrible system and it's not a productive way to use money as far as society is concerned, but unfortunately, it's the way the game is structured, and if you don't play the game, you'll get run over by those who do....

endersshadow 15y ago
Companies like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM which hold a huge number of software patents and aren't exactly keen on seeing that system go away, either. But yes, big pharma relies almost exclusively on patents to recoup R&D costs.
- Jach 15y ago
  R&D costs actually make up a pretty small portion of the pie. It's unclear what if anything patents are doing to recoup those since they're all just copying each other with designer drugs that are just slightly different enough to not violate someone else's patent. The pharma industry is probably a better example than the software industry for why patents suck. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf
  - tytso 15y ago
    It doesn't matter if it's a better example for why patents suck. They are spending more than we are lobbying congress to keep the current patent regime in place.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

wpietri 15y ago

A) I'm perfectly ok with hating the player and the game. Patent reform would be great, but you can't legislate sanity or neighborliness. B) This is not the game. As Fred Wilson explains, web company patents have been thought of as defensive. If this triggers a wave of patent lawsuit bullshit, then everybody will end up poorer. Except the lawyers, of course.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
Mutually Assured Litigation.
- ctdonath 15y ago
  MALware?
  - yannis 15y ago
    MALwar?

prof_hobart 15y ago

How about hating both? Yes, current patent law is broken, but that doesn't mean that Y! have to use it. If this was a defensive move against a patent claim from Facebook, I'd have some sympathy. But as far as I can tell, it isn't. So I don't.

jazzsax 15y ago

what sort of substantive analysis of the patents in this case have you done to justify claiming that this case indicates we need patent reform?

kd5bjo 15y ago

It seems that a lot of people think that we need substantive patent reform, but what I haven't heard is any real proposal except for scrapping the entire system (or possibly just for software). I've put together the basics of a proposal here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3698637 I'm sure that it has a lot of problems, but we need to start having the discussion of how to fix the system, instead of just whether or not it needs fixing.

angersock 15y ago
I replied to a couple points in your thread. Long story short, kill patents, kill copyright, keep trademark.
- PassTheAmmo 15y ago
  There would be huge problems with killing copyright IMHO. Most open source licenses are based on it for example. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-partys-copyright-reform-cannon-could-sink-copyleft.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/pirate-party...
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    Wouldnt it then shift from being a copyright enforcement issue to a contract/license enforcement issue? I.e. you agreed to share your source code if you distribute, but now you didn't, so sue city?
    - kd5bjo 15y ago
      But if there is no copyright, there is no need to license the software, you can just copy it without agreeing to anything. That's what it means for something to be in the public domain. Contracts are only valid if there is an exchange of value; you could reasonably argue that there is no value in being granted a right you already have.
  - cabalamat 15y ago

olaf 15y ago

It's not very effective to hate. I would prefer "fight/act effectively against the people who make/are responsible for the rules of the (dirty) game."

shmerl 15y ago

Not really. Those who act unethically bear the responsibility, and saying that since system is broken it's OK to abuse it just doesn't cut it. With that said, of course the system needs to be blamed (and changed) as well.

angersock 15y ago
What's unethical about this? Seriously, where is the moral imperative that says "Thou Shalt Not Patent Troll"?
- shmerl 15y ago
  Seriously, isn't it obvious? Look at the purpose of the patent law. It's supposed to promote innovation for the benefit of the society, or how it formally sounds: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Software patents do exactly the opposite. They not only don't promote any innovation or progress, they stifle it.
  - angersock 15y ago
    Thank you for elaborating on your position. Upvoted for content. That said, note that this isn't an abuse of the system--it is very much using it to the letter of the law. Note further that, at least in America it would seem, we place a very high value on the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the law. I still think there isn't a fully developed moral argument here, but at least you've elaborated on your position. For what it's worth, I think the rough sketch of the argument would go something like: scarcity is Bad, knowledge promotes nonscarcity therefore Good, patents intended to promote knowledge therefore Good, wording of patents allows companies to act to decrease knowledge there Bad. I just wanted to make sure you had a better backing than the usual "Oh noes patents are teh evil and the abuses you see". If we're ever going to fix this mess, we need to make sure our ideology and reasoning is in line and clear.
    - 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

They had a choice - not to use those patents they know are worthless, to make money from FB. So yeah, I'm also perfectly fine with hating the player in this case, too.

angersock 15y ago
It's just business. They have a responsibility to their shareholders.

asdfasdf4321 15y ago

Not to mention it's BS to pick on Yahoo. Intellectual Ventures? Mirosoft threatening Amazon/numerous hardware manufacturers to pay tithes because Linux infringes on unspecified patents? Seriously, this guy is an idiot. It's been happening forever, but usually the threat has been from the big guy.

bborud 15y ago

Patent reform is not going to happen until people start hating the player. Whenever someone says "don't hate the player" we end up a little bit further away from patent reform.

nilsbunger 15y ago

For reform, the trick is to find a solution that works at two ends of the spectrum: 1) A pharma company spends $1B on R&D to develop a drug and get FDA approval. If someone could knock off the resulting compound at 10 cents per pill, we wouldn't have the drug. 2) Software companies, where there are hundreds of potential patents to file or infringe on, and there is tons of iterative evolution.

nilsbunger 15y ago
Maybe reform could happen by fixing how damages are awarded? Like if you infringe on some patent that is a small part of a product, you pay a $100 fine or something? That would remove the financial incentive to sue unless you can prove someone's whole business is built on your ideas...

slowpoke 15y ago

>Don't hate the player, hate the game. In case you missed it, it's the players who make the game and keep it running - a self-sustaining spiral of endless bullshit.