3 ms·

Oh, that's interesting! Very different from my own personal experience in life, and the experience of people I've worked with, as you may have gathered. I'm de

Oh, that's interesting! Very different from my own personal experience in life, and the experience of people I've worked with, as you may have gathered. I'm definitely interested in learning about an opposite experience. Care to share? Were these "Software" patents? Hardware patents? Gene Patents? Which country? Do you have references to the patents and court cases?

freejazz 3y ago
What would you like to know? I'm not going to identify the patents nor their owners, as they never asked to be involved in this conversation, but I'm happy to share my own personal experiences. The patents were for a distributed networking system, that included hardware components, to be used in a particular industry. This is in the US. We defeated an Alice motion, with the court declaring that our patents were valid. Ultimately, we lost on a jury verdict. I see many of your posts and find them disagreeable. While I am not doubting your personal experiences, you seem to place them above the very clear incentive structures that exist today, which force patent owners to have to sell their patents because they cannot afford to enforce them against the likes of Netflix or Broadcom or Google. The big companies are free to infringe on such patents. That's why I find it disappointing when I see people express dismay over the fact that a patent owner would sell their interests to a non-practicing-entity that will attempt to license and enforce the patent. Such a patent owner has no little to capitalize from their invention otherwise. In the event they do not sell, then they absolutely need a litigation financier in order to satisfy the costs of enforcement ($1m-$2m) via litigation. For the most part, the system is stacked in favor of the large companies, so I find it very bizarre to repeatedly see comments that come out agains the rights and interests of such inventors.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  I'm sorry to hear that. The story you tell me appears to have two losers, both your side and the side you were suing. I doubt either side was happy to be there. This reinforces my belief that software patents are inappropriate. Personally I'm not against the little guy or the big guy here. The fact of the matter is that I'm opposed to software patents entirely. My reasoning is that software patents are unsuitable for purpose. I'm not alone in this, it seems to be a fairly common sentiment among software developers I've spoken to. In fact, where I live (EU), originally Article 52 of the European Patent Convention does theoretically ban software patents, but see [1] [2]. I might change my mind if I hear of (m)any cases where software patents actually turned out to be helpful. Have there been any instances where you got a (software) patent outcome you were actually happy with? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38250251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38250251 (different thread in this discussion wrt European Patent Convention) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E... if you just want a direct WP article.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    We didn't have a software patent. >I might change my mind if I hear of (m)any cases where software patents actually turned out to be helpful. Have there been any instances where you got a (software) patent outcome you were actually happy with? We lost because the jury found that we didn't infringe. Not because the patent was bad. I already explained that to you. What difference does it make whether or not we infringe to the validity of "software patents"? Which, btw, I explained we did not have a software patent.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      Ah ok, so you're not actually claiming to be an expert on software patents. I was briefly confused because you mentioned you defeated an Alice motion. I was hoping to get a different view on the matter from someone who had had a different experience to mine.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        I did defeat an Alice motion. I never claimed to be an expert on software patents, I'm not sure where you got that from. I claimed to have actual experience in the field and I shared what my experience encompassed and how its distinct from the narrative you weave in every patent-related thread. I described what the patents encompassed and you called it a software patent. It's not a "software patent", it has hardware components. >I was hoping to get a different view on the matter from someone who had had a different experience to mine. You come off as smarmy and disingenuous. Your comment here is also not actually responsive and just seems to be wrapped up ad hom. Answer the question: what does infringement have to do with the validity of software patents as a concept?

freejazz 3y ago

What would you like to know? I'm not going to identify the patents nor their owners, as they never asked to be involved in this conversation, but I'm happy to share my own personal experiences. The patents were for a distributed networking system, that included hardware components, to be used in a particular industry. This is in the US. We defeated an Alice motion, with the court declaring that our patents were valid. Ultimately, we lost on a jury verdict. I see many of your posts and find them disagreeable. While I am not doubting your personal experiences, you seem to place them above the very clear incentive structures that exist today, which force patent owners to have to sell their patents because they cannot afford to enforce them against the likes of Netflix or Broadcom or Google. The big companies are free to infringe on such patents. That's why I find it disappointing when I see people express dismay over the fact that a patent owner would sell their interests to a non-practicing-entity that will attempt to license and enforce the patent. Such a patent owner has no little to capitalize from their invention otherwise. In the event they do not sell, then they absolutely need a litigation financier in order to satisfy the costs of enforcement ($1m-$2m) via litigation. For the most part, the system is stacked in favor of the large companies, so I find it very bizarre to repeatedly see comments that come out agains the rights and interests of such inventors.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
I'm sorry to hear that. The story you tell me appears to have two losers, both your side and the side you were suing. I doubt either side was happy to be there. This reinforces my belief that software patents are inappropriate. Personally I'm not against the little guy or the big guy here. The fact of the matter is that I'm opposed to software patents entirely. My reasoning is that software patents are unsuitable for purpose. I'm not alone in this, it seems to be a fairly common sentiment among software developers I've spoken to. In fact, where I live (EU), originally Article 52 of the European Patent Convention does theoretically ban software patents, but see [1] [2]. I might change my mind if I hear of (m)any cases where software patents actually turned out to be helpful. Have there been any instances where you got a (software) patent outcome you were actually happy with? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38250251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38250251 (different thread in this discussion wrt European Patent Convention) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E... if you just want a direct WP article.
- freejazz 3y ago
  We didn't have a software patent. >I might change my mind if I hear of (m)any cases where software patents actually turned out to be helpful. Have there been any instances where you got a (software) patent outcome you were actually happy with? We lost because the jury found that we didn't infringe. Not because the patent was bad. I already explained that to you. What difference does it make whether or not we infringe to the validity of "software patents"? Which, btw, I explained we did not have a software patent.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    Ah ok, so you're not actually claiming to be an expert on software patents. I was briefly confused because you mentioned you defeated an Alice motion. I was hoping to get a different view on the matter from someone who had had a different experience to mine.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I did defeat an Alice motion. I never claimed to be an expert on software patents, I'm not sure where you got that from. I claimed to have actual experience in the field and I shared what my experience encompassed and how its distinct from the narrative you weave in every patent-related thread. I described what the patents encompassed and you called it a software patent. It's not a "software patent", it has hardware components. >I was hoping to get a different view on the matter from someone who had had a different experience to mine. You come off as smarmy and disingenuous. Your comment here is also not actually responsive and just seems to be wrapped up ad hom. Answer the question: what does infringement have to do with the validity of software patents as a concept?