4 ms·

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.

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

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?