3 ms·

You just confused a design patent with a utility patent. Frankly, I've personally not yet seen an anti-patent argument from someone who actually understood wha

by nirvana 14y ago

You just confused a design patent with a utility patent. Frankly, I've personally not yet seen an anti-patent argument from someone who actually understood what patents were, how they worked, etc. They constantly confuse terms, misrepresents what the patents they are dogging actually say, or rely solely on unsupported assertions. Including hundreds of comments here on HN, all of which seem to be ideologically driven repetitions of talking points, and none of which come from people who have read the patents or which accurately represent what the patents actually cover. (Eg: all the commentary on the Samsung trial, not one criticizing the patents was accurate.) Its not like patents are secret- they're published on the web for anyone to read. Near as I can tell-- google felt they needed to rip off the iPhone for android in order to compete, and therefore, suddenly, patents are bad. Yet microsoft's metro UI shows this isn't the case....

josephlord 14y ago
Im going to make an anti-patent comment hopefully without mistakes. Sticking to patents there are clearly real problems with the thicket of patents where many things can be infringing without realising it (while patents are public they are impractical to study or to get an idea of all the patents in an area like touch UIs and even if you could it is hard to correctly understand and interpret the claims to work around them). The cost of the legal actions is a real problem (for small companies) in itself partially caused by the weakness of the initial examination that means that many of the existing patents will be found invalid if ever tested in court. The lack of certainty over validity also harms patent holders who cannot really assume that really do have a valid patent and this will harm them in negotiations. If patents are to be kept (and the economic case isn't clear to me although it may be there) then if the primary examination cannot be improved then there should be a second and more in depth (and more expensive) examination that should be required before legal action is brought (or optionally to strengthen their negotiating position). After this phase it should weed out sufficient invalid patents so that there is an 80-90% chance it will be found valid in court.
waterhouse 14y ago
> I've personally not yet seen an anti-patent argument from someone who actually understood what patents were, how they worked, etc. If you are interested... Stephan Kinsella, according to his website, has worked as a patent attorney since 1992, and is therefore likely to know how patents work. He gives talks and writes articles and blog posts and at least one book against intellectual property. A talk that turned up quickly: http://mises.org/daily/4848/ http://mises.org/daily/4848/ A collection of links to his writings against IP (and, it being his website, at the top you can find pointers to more information about him and stuff): http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/#IP http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/#IP

by nirvana 14y ago

josephlord 14y ago

Im going to make an anti-patent comment hopefully without mistakes. Sticking to patents there are clearly real problems with the thicket of patents where many things can be infringing without realising it (while patents are public they are impractical to study or to get an idea of all the patents in an area like touch UIs and even if you could it is hard to correctly understand and interpret the claims to work around them). The cost of the legal actions is a real problem (for small companies) in itself partially caused by the weakness of the initial examination that means that many of the existing patents will be found invalid if ever tested in court. The lack of certainty over validity also harms patent holders who cannot really assume that really do have a valid patent and this will harm them in negotiations. If patents are to be kept (and the economic case isn't clear to me although it may be there) then if the primary examination cannot be improved then there should be a second and more in depth (and more expensive) examination that should be required before legal action is brought (or optionally to strengthen their negotiating position). After this phase it should weed out sufficient invalid patents so that there is an 80-90% chance it will be found valid in court.

waterhouse 14y ago

> I've personally not yet seen an anti-patent argument from someone who actually understood what patents were, how they worked, etc. If you are interested... Stephan Kinsella, according to his website, has worked as a patent attorney since 1992, and is therefore likely to know how patents work. He gives talks and writes articles and blog posts and at least one book against intellectual property. A talk that turned up quickly: http://mises.org/daily/4848/ http://mises.org/daily/4848/ A collection of links to his writings against IP (and, it being his website, at the top you can find pointers to more information about him and stuff): http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/#IP http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/#IP