12 ms·

Think of this more of as public service than a job, with the cash prize being there to generate media excitement. I'll still pick up litter when I'm walking th

Think of this more of as public service than a job, with the cash prize being there to generate media excitement. I'll still pick up litter when I'm walking through a rich neighborhood, even though those people have groundskeepers to take care of it for them. No one is doing this with the goal of a profit.

btrettel 2y ago
Why should I do a "public service" for a company with a market cap measured in the tens of billions of dollars? They can pay for it. And this is a much bigger ask than picking up litter.
- delfinom 2y ago
  Because it isn't just helping the one company when you invalidate patents. It's helping future startups and even mom & pop operations in some cases. Shit, why does anyone even work on open source software, it's just going to help some company with a market cap measured in billions.
- jstanley 2y ago
  Nobody's trying to tell you that you have to do this. They're trying to help you understand why other people want to do it. Is there a name for the fallacy "I don't see why people do X", "they do it because Y", "but I don't care about Y!" ?
  - immibis 2y ago
    Projection?
  - btrettel 2y ago
    Fair enough. Replace "I" with "someone" in my previous comment. I can see why people would do these patent searches, but I still think it's a bad idea for those folks do these patent searches for so little.
    - barkingcat 2y ago
      isn't this exactly the point? from the viewpoint you've presented it's a bad idea to volunteer for basically anything. even something like enlisting in a nation's armed forces is a bad idea since the risk is so high vs the monetary reward, and the only way people would become soldiers is to join mercenary armies where there is a price exacted that matches the performance. for many people, they value the intangible more than the money.
      - btrettel 2y ago
        Okay, I think appreciate your perspective and that of some others here more. If you all think it's a good use of your time, go ahead. Personally, I have more pressing concerns. And for what it's worth, (and I know this won't be popular here) the entire patent troll narrative is overblown, which seems to be the consensus opinion of people working in patent law. For example, see this blog post: https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-prevent-honest-discussion-patent-system/id=84598/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-preven... Given that I think the narrative is overblown, I don't really see this as a "public service". It's a problem, sure, but it's not a major one.
        scbrg 2y ago
        [flagged]
        kortilla 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Multiplayer 2y ago
        I think the severity of this problem depends on context. I can share that as a small startup we had a patent troll come after us and it was almost fatal because it shattered our fund raising process. We prevailed and lived to fight another day but that was an incredibly unproductive and stressful time. So I see this differently as do the many team members who kept their jobs and made good money when we were acquired.
        2y ago
  - malfist 2y ago
    I don't know that it's a fallacy that has a name, but it could be considered an appeal to authority (person is claiming authority on what other should care about) or ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) since the conclusion (nobody should care about this) obviously doesn't follow (I don't care about this).
  - ggm 2y ago
    It's inductance from the particular (me) to the general case Since I hate crab, all people hate crab and confronted by a crab meat liker I have no capacity to imagine why, since I hate it and therefore everybody should and therefore you're wrong. In reality, it's the exception proving (testing) the case and showing it's flaw: all people do not hate crab therefore my generalisation is specious. Instead of doubting why anyone likes crab I should ask why I hate it.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Induction?
- nfriedly 2y ago
  > Why should I do a "public service" for a company with a market cap measured in the tens of billions of dollars? They can pay for it. It's right there in the name: public service. Yeah, it benefits cloudflare, but it also benefits nearly everyone else. Some people just want to improve the world, even if they're not fairly compensated for it. Some people see living in a world with one less patent troll as compensation enough.
  - btrettel 2y ago
    The alternative is that Cloudflare pays a patent search firm to get the same result, albeit at a higher cost to Cloudflare. That would benefit everyone else too as the prior art would be on legal record. Why can't Cloudflare do a "public service" by paying a patent search firm like most other companies would?
    - dev_tty01 2y ago
      >Why can't Cloudflare do a "public service" by paying a patent search firm like most other companies would? I'm sure they did that too, like any other major company sued by a troll. This isn't an either/or situation. Jengo draws from many, many people across the industry. They can surface all sorts of prior art, not just earlier patents, and they know where to look due to their experience. As I said, every large company that gets sued by trolls pays patent search firms to find prior art. I can't imagine that Cloudflare didn't do the same. Why wouldn't they, there is a lot of money at stake? They added to that through the search program because the yield from patent search firms is often poor.
    - eastdakota 2y ago
      “You didn’t pay enough to my view of experts, but you won, but you could have won and paid more, and that’d be better.” That’s your argument? Just to be clear? And, note, this strategy has worked pretty (cost) effectively for us before: https://blog.cloudflare.com/winning-the-blackbird-battle/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/winning-the-blackbird-battle/ But you’d suggest we do what everyone else does and hire expensive “experts”? K. Good luck with that. Oh, forgot, that’s your profession… expensive expert. Carry on.
- btilly 2y ago
  Why should a company that is doing a public service for the rest of us, at their own expense, pay more than it needs to to do that service? If Cloudflare was to behave rationally, it would simply pay the troll to go away. Trolls are very good at making that the logical choice, which is why virtually everyone else just pays up. Cloudflare fights because the act of taking a stand fits with their values. You're clearly not civic minded enough to appreciate why Cloudflare does what it does. And so you don't understand why other people, who share Cloudflare's values, would be motivated to help them accomplish their good deeds.
  - eastdakota 2y ago
    Yup!
  - thayne 2y ago
    > If Cloudflare was to behave rationally, it would simply pay the troll to go away. Well, maybe. Cloudflare is a company that sells to developers. A lot of developers hate patent trolls. Fighting back against a patent troll is a good way to gain respect and goodwill from those developers. So it could effectively be an advertisement campaign, and for the target audience, probably a lot more effective than paying for banner ads. It could also benefit recruiting, and moral of developers who like seeing someone stand up to patent trolls. Also, by setting a precedent of fighting back, they might deter future attempts at shakedowns from other patent trolls. That's not to say that their motives are completely selfish. I'm sure there were altruistic motivations as well (and motivations no doubt varies among individuals involved in this). But it isn't irrational.
    - 20after4 2y ago
      > It could also benefit recruiting, and moral of developers who like seeing someone stand up to patent trolls. For sure. I actually had the thought that I should consider applying to work there, exactly for the reasons you mention and one other reason as well: I enjoyed some of the snarky comments posted here which appear to be from folks at Cloudflare. They seem like people I would enjoy working with. So that's +1 to my opinion of the company in general and +2 to their desirability as a potential employer where I might consider working in the future.
- mcherm 2y ago
  If the patent trolls were only harming CloudFlare then I would not be so concerned. But it is my impression that they mostly try to go after very small, independent companies because those can be guaranteed to not have enough funds to fight in court, so they will either pay up or go out of business. I consider it a public service to try and drive these patent trolls out of business because the harm they do is done to the the entire industry, especially the most vulnerable companies in that industry. Of course, I would much prefer to change the law so that patent trolling was not allowed or was not profitable.
  - btrettel 2y ago
    For what it's worth, and I know this won't be popular here, the entire patent troll narrative is overblown. Patent trolls are not as big a problem as big tech companies want you to believe. See what people working in patent law actually think, for instance, I found this blog post in a minute or so: https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-prevent-honest-discussion-patent-system/id=84598/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-preven... I think it's good that Cloudflare didn't pay this particular troll, but even if they had, it's not that big a deal. And the best way to stop patent trolls would be to prevent bad patents from being granted in the first place by giving examiners more time. The USPTO is funded solely by fees, not taxes, creating a perverse incentive to grant invalid patents. Fix that, increase patent fees, and give examiners more time.
    - 20after4 2y ago
      > And the best way to stop patent trolls would be to prevent bad patents from being granted in the first place by giving examiners more time. The USPTO is funded solely by fees, not taxes, creating a perverse incentive to grant invalid patents. Fix that, increase patent fees, and give examiners more time. I think you are probably right about this, at least in direction if not in magnitude. The "patent troll myth" argument isn't persuasive, however, and I don't think you are convincing many people here. Patent trolls are clearly a problem, in particular for startups and independent software developers who lack the resources to effectively fight the trolls. The cost of settling with a troll might bankrupt a small startup before they have a chance to raise a lot of capital and hire expensive lawyers. Open source projects are also harmed greatly by patents and patent trolls on a regular basis. There are many famous and well studied examples since the early days of the free software movement. I'd recommend reading some random articles on techdirt.com (or even just skim the headlines) for a quick refresher. I am strongly in the anti-patent camp. I don't think we should enforce any patents, especially not software patents but even beyond that. It seems to me that all forms of Monopoly are bad, including the time-limited, government sponsored ones. The promise of patents is that you have to reveal a useful invention, in such a way that it would enable others to copy that invention, but then they must pay you a license to do so. I've read a lot of patents and I have encountered only a few that actually divulged something useful that I wouldn't have known otherwise. The vast majority of them simply utilize a specialized genera of legalese to carefully craft a pretext for interfering in other people's business. The idea is to make the language as convoluted and ambiguous as possible in order to cover the most potential situations and cast the most doubt about what is actually covered. Meanwhile they are careful to control the amount of useful / valuable content to a level that is practically zero. I'd argue that with the vast majority of patents, it's actually pretty far into negative value territory. Besides litigation and hypothetical IP value listed on a balance sheet, the only real service that most patents provide to the world is to fill the world with more FUD. Just what we all need, more things to worry about. I'm sure every god fearing individual goes to sleep at night praying for another reason to hesitate before trying something new. Everyone loves that hesitation which comes along with every inspiration: will this exciting idea I have for making something useful turn into a successful business or will I get the attention of some scummy lawyers and wind up on the wrong end of a ruinous lawsuit.
- moomin 2y ago
  To explain the thought process: most people doing this aren’t doing this to help CloudFlare. They’re doing this because they want to hurt patent trolls. Their time might be better spent forming a lobbying group and calling their representatives, but CloudFlare’s role in this is to provide them with a way to do what they wanted to do in the first place. Not saying CloudFlare shouldn’t reward them better.

btrettel 2y ago

Why should I do a "public service" for a company with a market cap measured in the tens of billions of dollars? They can pay for it. And this is a much bigger ask than picking up litter.

delfinom 2y ago
Because it isn't just helping the one company when you invalidate patents. It's helping future startups and even mom & pop operations in some cases. Shit, why does anyone even work on open source software, it's just going to help some company with a market cap measured in billions.
jstanley 2y ago
Nobody's trying to tell you that you have to do this. They're trying to help you understand why other people want to do it. Is there a name for the fallacy "I don't see why people do X", "they do it because Y", "but I don't care about Y!" ?
- immibis 2y ago
  Projection?
- btrettel 2y ago
  Fair enough. Replace "I" with "someone" in my previous comment. I can see why people would do these patent searches, but I still think it's a bad idea for those folks do these patent searches for so little.
  - barkingcat 2y ago
    isn't this exactly the point? from the viewpoint you've presented it's a bad idea to volunteer for basically anything. even something like enlisting in a nation's armed forces is a bad idea since the risk is so high vs the monetary reward, and the only way people would become soldiers is to join mercenary armies where there is a price exacted that matches the performance. for many people, they value the intangible more than the money.
    - btrettel 2y ago
      Okay, I think appreciate your perspective and that of some others here more. If you all think it's a good use of your time, go ahead. Personally, I have more pressing concerns. And for what it's worth, (and I know this won't be popular here) the entire patent troll narrative is overblown, which seems to be the consensus opinion of people working in patent law. For example, see this blog post: https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-prevent-honest-discussion-patent-system/id=84598/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-preven... Given that I think the narrative is overblown, I don't really see this as a "public service". It's a problem, sure, but it's not a major one.
      - scbrg 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - kortilla 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - Multiplayer 2y ago
        I think the severity of this problem depends on context. I can share that as a small startup we had a patent troll come after us and it was almost fatal because it shattered our fund raising process. We prevailed and lived to fight another day but that was an incredibly unproductive and stressful time. So I see this differently as do the many team members who kept their jobs and made good money when we were acquired.
      - 2y ago
- malfist 2y ago
  I don't know that it's a fallacy that has a name, but it could be considered an appeal to authority (person is claiming authority on what other should care about) or ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) since the conclusion (nobody should care about this) obviously doesn't follow (I don't care about this).
- ggm 2y ago
  It's inductance from the particular (me) to the general case Since I hate crab, all people hate crab and confronted by a crab meat liker I have no capacity to imagine why, since I hate it and therefore everybody should and therefore you're wrong. In reality, it's the exception proving (testing) the case and showing it's flaw: all people do not hate crab therefore my generalisation is specious. Instead of doubting why anyone likes crab I should ask why I hate it.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Induction?
nfriedly 2y ago
> Why should I do a "public service" for a company with a market cap measured in the tens of billions of dollars? They can pay for it. It's right there in the name: public service. Yeah, it benefits cloudflare, but it also benefits nearly everyone else. Some people just want to improve the world, even if they're not fairly compensated for it. Some people see living in a world with one less patent troll as compensation enough.
- btrettel 2y ago
  The alternative is that Cloudflare pays a patent search firm to get the same result, albeit at a higher cost to Cloudflare. That would benefit everyone else too as the prior art would be on legal record. Why can't Cloudflare do a "public service" by paying a patent search firm like most other companies would?
  - dev_tty01 2y ago
    >Why can't Cloudflare do a "public service" by paying a patent search firm like most other companies would? I'm sure they did that too, like any other major company sued by a troll. This isn't an either/or situation. Jengo draws from many, many people across the industry. They can surface all sorts of prior art, not just earlier patents, and they know where to look due to their experience. As I said, every large company that gets sued by trolls pays patent search firms to find prior art. I can't imagine that Cloudflare didn't do the same. Why wouldn't they, there is a lot of money at stake? They added to that through the search program because the yield from patent search firms is often poor.
  - eastdakota 2y ago
    “You didn’t pay enough to my view of experts, but you won, but you could have won and paid more, and that’d be better.” That’s your argument? Just to be clear? And, note, this strategy has worked pretty (cost) effectively for us before: https://blog.cloudflare.com/winning-the-blackbird-battle/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/winning-the-blackbird-battle/ But you’d suggest we do what everyone else does and hire expensive “experts”? K. Good luck with that. Oh, forgot, that’s your profession… expensive expert. Carry on.
btilly 2y ago
Why should a company that is doing a public service for the rest of us, at their own expense, pay more than it needs to to do that service? If Cloudflare was to behave rationally, it would simply pay the troll to go away. Trolls are very good at making that the logical choice, which is why virtually everyone else just pays up. Cloudflare fights because the act of taking a stand fits with their values. You're clearly not civic minded enough to appreciate why Cloudflare does what it does. And so you don't understand why other people, who share Cloudflare's values, would be motivated to help them accomplish their good deeds.
- eastdakota 2y ago
  Yup!
- thayne 2y ago
  > If Cloudflare was to behave rationally, it would simply pay the troll to go away. Well, maybe. Cloudflare is a company that sells to developers. A lot of developers hate patent trolls. Fighting back against a patent troll is a good way to gain respect and goodwill from those developers. So it could effectively be an advertisement campaign, and for the target audience, probably a lot more effective than paying for banner ads. It could also benefit recruiting, and moral of developers who like seeing someone stand up to patent trolls. Also, by setting a precedent of fighting back, they might deter future attempts at shakedowns from other patent trolls. That's not to say that their motives are completely selfish. I'm sure there were altruistic motivations as well (and motivations no doubt varies among individuals involved in this). But it isn't irrational.
  - 20after4 2y ago
    > It could also benefit recruiting, and moral of developers who like seeing someone stand up to patent trolls. For sure. I actually had the thought that I should consider applying to work there, exactly for the reasons you mention and one other reason as well: I enjoyed some of the snarky comments posted here which appear to be from folks at Cloudflare. They seem like people I would enjoy working with. So that's +1 to my opinion of the company in general and +2 to their desirability as a potential employer where I might consider working in the future.
mcherm 2y ago
If the patent trolls were only harming CloudFlare then I would not be so concerned. But it is my impression that they mostly try to go after very small, independent companies because those can be guaranteed to not have enough funds to fight in court, so they will either pay up or go out of business. I consider it a public service to try and drive these patent trolls out of business because the harm they do is done to the the entire industry, especially the most vulnerable companies in that industry. Of course, I would much prefer to change the law so that patent trolling was not allowed or was not profitable.
- btrettel 2y ago
  For what it's worth, and I know this won't be popular here, the entire patent troll narrative is overblown. Patent trolls are not as big a problem as big tech companies want you to believe. See what people working in patent law actually think, for instance, I found this blog post in a minute or so: https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-prevent-honest-discussion-patent-system/id=84598/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/22/myths-patent-trolls-preven... I think it's good that Cloudflare didn't pay this particular troll, but even if they had, it's not that big a deal. And the best way to stop patent trolls would be to prevent bad patents from being granted in the first place by giving examiners more time. The USPTO is funded solely by fees, not taxes, creating a perverse incentive to grant invalid patents. Fix that, increase patent fees, and give examiners more time.
  - 20after4 2y ago
    > And the best way to stop patent trolls would be to prevent bad patents from being granted in the first place by giving examiners more time. The USPTO is funded solely by fees, not taxes, creating a perverse incentive to grant invalid patents. Fix that, increase patent fees, and give examiners more time. I think you are probably right about this, at least in direction if not in magnitude. The "patent troll myth" argument isn't persuasive, however, and I don't think you are convincing many people here. Patent trolls are clearly a problem, in particular for startups and independent software developers who lack the resources to effectively fight the trolls. The cost of settling with a troll might bankrupt a small startup before they have a chance to raise a lot of capital and hire expensive lawyers. Open source projects are also harmed greatly by patents and patent trolls on a regular basis. There are many famous and well studied examples since the early days of the free software movement. I'd recommend reading some random articles on techdirt.com (or even just skim the headlines) for a quick refresher. I am strongly in the anti-patent camp. I don't think we should enforce any patents, especially not software patents but even beyond that. It seems to me that all forms of Monopoly are bad, including the time-limited, government sponsored ones. The promise of patents is that you have to reveal a useful invention, in such a way that it would enable others to copy that invention, but then they must pay you a license to do so. I've read a lot of patents and I have encountered only a few that actually divulged something useful that I wouldn't have known otherwise. The vast majority of them simply utilize a specialized genera of legalese to carefully craft a pretext for interfering in other people's business. The idea is to make the language as convoluted and ambiguous as possible in order to cover the most potential situations and cast the most doubt about what is actually covered. Meanwhile they are careful to control the amount of useful / valuable content to a level that is practically zero. I'd argue that with the vast majority of patents, it's actually pretty far into negative value territory. Besides litigation and hypothetical IP value listed on a balance sheet, the only real service that most patents provide to the world is to fill the world with more FUD. Just what we all need, more things to worry about. I'm sure every god fearing individual goes to sleep at night praying for another reason to hesitate before trying something new. Everyone loves that hesitation which comes along with every inspiration: will this exciting idea I have for making something useful turn into a successful business or will I get the attention of some scummy lawyers and wind up on the wrong end of a ruinous lawsuit.
moomin 2y ago
To explain the thought process: most people doing this aren’t doing this to help CloudFlare. They’re doing this because they want to hurt patent trolls. Their time might be better spent forming a lobbying group and calling their representatives, but CloudFlare’s role in this is to provide them with a way to do what they wanted to do in the first place. Not saying CloudFlare shouldn’t reward them better.