6 ms·

This is ycombinator's hackernews, the title should read "Patent trolls created $29B of value." I don't condone it but let's be consistent.

Paul_S 14y ago
Come now, you can't get away with a statement like that without explaining your argument.
- ktizo 14y ago
  You are assuming that there is an argument behind it. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
  - ximeng 14y ago
    Off topic, but in that quote who is the idiot telling the tale?
    - pi18n 14y ago
      Either nobody in particular or Macbeth himself, I guess.
      - ktizo 14y ago
        Is all of life itself. Might also be Shakespeare being cynical about his own craft. He could be very post-modern for someone living that long ago. [edit] also thinking about it, is a reference to god as well, as the tale is life, but the teller is the idiot.
        pi18n 14y ago
        Those are interesting interpretations, thank you for that.
- its_so_on 14y ago
  all right, I'll explain it. One guy's cost is another guy's value (almost by definition - of course there are exceptions such as losing something to nature through accident instead of losing money to persons or companies [of any kind] by making an expenditure of any kind to them) - so the patent trolls "create" whatever value we add up to get to the number quoted. I am not saying anyone supports patents. I'm saying hackernews should be more consistent - or otherwise admit that "creating value" isn't an end in itself. It's the wrong question. Edit: I think the current title is fine. ("Patent trolls created $29B extra cost in the U.S. last year") I just want us to be clear that one guy's cost is another guy's "value". I would love to see more cooperative-optimistic-tit-for-tat solutions to the prisoner's dilemma, so that instead of just saying "creating value" we are more specific about the whole system. This is what (an unnamed restaurant review site) gets wrong and Google gets right, in my opinion. Google adds value whereas (unnamed) removes it. Of course in a naive sense (unnamed) is also "creating value". Just as these patent trolls are. We don't condone it, but let's be consistent.
  - taligent 14y ago
    This is the broken window fallacy. Patent trolls who serve no purpose other than to litigate don't create value. And if we take one in particular Lodsys. They had the potential to destroy a lot of value when they sued small app developers many of whom simply didn't have the resources to defend themselves.
    - its_so_on 14y ago
      Exactly. And yet by the business ethics that are rampant here, they do create value (see my cousin comment). These aren't "the system". These are specific for-profit enterprises. If an enterprise shrinks the size of the economy by $1b but in the process gets people to pay it $100m, then by getting people to make that payment it has "created 100m of value." Nevermind the effect on the rest of the system. Please be consistent here.
      - reitzensteinm 14y ago
        There is no inconsistency here, you're again falling for the broken window fallacy. Busy work does not create value; eliminating it does. The simplest way to demonstrate it is to look at the industrial revolution. Vast amounts of people were put out of work because automation made the economy more efficient. $1bn industries, as you say, were permanently shrunk to $100m industries, left right and center. All those workers displaced eventually found employment elsewhere, and it turned out to be one of the largest economic booms in history. Would you rather we still weave our sheets by hand employing 100 times as many workers as the modern textile industry, each one costing $1000? Because that's exactly the consequence of your line of argument.
- ximeng 14y ago
  Perhaps the idea that the cost of a service should equal the value provided, rather than the cost to produce the service.
  - its_so_on 14y ago
    when a company claims to have "created $50m of value" they mean that that's what they're producing is "worth" as valuated by their customers. For lean companies like those featured here, their cost doesn't enter the picture.
mtgx 14y ago
I don't think the majority of HN readers view patents in a positive way. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2552740 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2552740
- its_so_on 14y ago
  I know - and I don't either. But we need to be consistent in how we talk about companies that have a revenue stream they create at a systemic cost to everyone: this is (from the companies') perspective, "building value."
  - ktizo 14y ago
    By that argument the KLF were building value when they made a million quid with the express intention of setting it all on fire. And they possibly were, in artistic terms. However, if we are talking about people who are just shifting money around without creating anything other than unnecessary work, then they are a cost to the wider economy, they are not increasing it's value.
    - Danieru 14y ago
      To be fair the cost of burning 1 million dollars is only the cost to print and transport the money. Assuming it only costs 10c to print a $20 bill then the cost to society of the act was a meagre $5000. I imagine the entertainment value provided would been worth more than $5000. Thus the act could have been a net gain for society. The other $995,000 would have been redistributed through-out the money supply in the form of deflation.
saalweachter 14y ago
Value is only created if patents are functioning as part of a system of disseminating ideas. Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, when you -- as an engineer -- have a particularly difficult problem in front of you, you first go to a catalogue of solutions, look up the problem, and see if there is a solution already. If so, you pay a nominal fee to the solver, incorporate it into your design, and move on to unsolved problems. In the second world, you have the same particularly difficult problem, but there is no catalogue of solutions, so you buckle down and solve the problem yourself. Later, someone looks at your solution and declares that a portion of it is similar to something they wrote down in the big pile of disorganized ideas. You didn't know this, because looking in the big pile of disorganized ideas is a lot of work and rarely pays off, because most of the ideas are half-assed and don't really tell you anything you didn't already know. An exorbitant fee is then charged. There may be some industries living in the first world; I can imagine that in -- say -- chemical engineering, it is very easy to organize the ways to produce chemicals by the formula of the desired end product, and that the standard for describing how to produce a chemical leads to a pretty useful solution. The software industry, however, isn't.

Paul_S 14y ago

Come now, you can't get away with a statement like that without explaining your argument.

ktizo 14y ago
You are assuming that there is an argument behind it. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
- ximeng 14y ago
  Off topic, but in that quote who is the idiot telling the tale?
  - pi18n 14y ago
    Either nobody in particular or Macbeth himself, I guess.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Is all of life itself. Might also be Shakespeare being cynical about his own craft. He could be very post-modern for someone living that long ago. [edit] also thinking about it, is a reference to god as well, as the tale is life, but the teller is the idiot.
      - pi18n 14y ago
        Those are interesting interpretations, thank you for that.
its_so_on 14y ago
all right, I'll explain it. One guy's cost is another guy's value (almost by definition - of course there are exceptions such as losing something to nature through accident instead of losing money to persons or companies [of any kind] by making an expenditure of any kind to them) - so the patent trolls "create" whatever value we add up to get to the number quoted. I am not saying anyone supports patents. I'm saying hackernews should be more consistent - or otherwise admit that "creating value" isn't an end in itself. It's the wrong question. Edit: I think the current title is fine. ("Patent trolls created $29B extra cost in the U.S. last year") I just want us to be clear that one guy's cost is another guy's "value". I would love to see more cooperative-optimistic-tit-for-tat solutions to the prisoner's dilemma, so that instead of just saying "creating value" we are more specific about the whole system. This is what (an unnamed restaurant review site) gets wrong and Google gets right, in my opinion. Google adds value whereas (unnamed) removes it. Of course in a naive sense (unnamed) is also "creating value". Just as these patent trolls are. We don't condone it, but let's be consistent.
- taligent 14y ago
  This is the broken window fallacy. Patent trolls who serve no purpose other than to litigate don't create value. And if we take one in particular Lodsys. They had the potential to destroy a lot of value when they sued small app developers many of whom simply didn't have the resources to defend themselves.
  - its_so_on 14y ago
    Exactly. And yet by the business ethics that are rampant here, they do create value (see my cousin comment). These aren't "the system". These are specific for-profit enterprises. If an enterprise shrinks the size of the economy by $1b but in the process gets people to pay it $100m, then by getting people to make that payment it has "created 100m of value." Nevermind the effect on the rest of the system. Please be consistent here.
    - reitzensteinm 14y ago
      There is no inconsistency here, you're again falling for the broken window fallacy. Busy work does not create value; eliminating it does. The simplest way to demonstrate it is to look at the industrial revolution. Vast amounts of people were put out of work because automation made the economy more efficient. $1bn industries, as you say, were permanently shrunk to $100m industries, left right and center. All those workers displaced eventually found employment elsewhere, and it turned out to be one of the largest economic booms in history. Would you rather we still weave our sheets by hand employing 100 times as many workers as the modern textile industry, each one costing $1000? Because that's exactly the consequence of your line of argument.
ximeng 14y ago
Perhaps the idea that the cost of a service should equal the value provided, rather than the cost to produce the service.
- its_so_on 14y ago
  when a company claims to have "created $50m of value" they mean that that's what they're producing is "worth" as valuated by their customers. For lean companies like those featured here, their cost doesn't enter the picture.

mtgx 14y ago

I don't think the majority of HN readers view patents in a positive way. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2552740 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2552740

its_so_on 14y ago
I know - and I don't either. But we need to be consistent in how we talk about companies that have a revenue stream they create at a systemic cost to everyone: this is (from the companies') perspective, "building value."
- ktizo 14y ago
  By that argument the KLF were building value when they made a million quid with the express intention of setting it all on fire. And they possibly were, in artistic terms. However, if we are talking about people who are just shifting money around without creating anything other than unnecessary work, then they are a cost to the wider economy, they are not increasing it's value.
  - Danieru 14y ago
    To be fair the cost of burning 1 million dollars is only the cost to print and transport the money. Assuming it only costs 10c to print a $20 bill then the cost to society of the act was a meagre $5000. I imagine the entertainment value provided would been worth more than $5000. Thus the act could have been a net gain for society. The other $995,000 would have been redistributed through-out the money supply in the form of deflation.

saalweachter 14y ago

Value is only created if patents are functioning as part of a system of disseminating ideas. Imagine two possible worlds. In the first world, when you -- as an engineer -- have a particularly difficult problem in front of you, you first go to a catalogue of solutions, look up the problem, and see if there is a solution already. If so, you pay a nominal fee to the solver, incorporate it into your design, and move on to unsolved problems. In the second world, you have the same particularly difficult problem, but there is no catalogue of solutions, so you buckle down and solve the problem yourself. Later, someone looks at your solution and declares that a portion of it is similar to something they wrote down in the big pile of disorganized ideas. You didn't know this, because looking in the big pile of disorganized ideas is a lot of work and rarely pays off, because most of the ideas are half-assed and don't really tell you anything you didn't already know. An exorbitant fee is then charged. There may be some industries living in the first world; I can imagine that in -- say -- chemical engineering, it is very easy to organize the ways to produce chemicals by the formula of the desired end product, and that the standard for describing how to produce a chemical leads to a pretty useful solution. The software industry, however, isn't.