4 ms·

Ah yes, because nothing's better than a repository of dox for script kiddies to reference on impulse and without a balanced arrangement of facts or even indepen

Ah yes, because nothing's better than a repository of dox for script kiddies to reference on impulse and without a balanced arrangement of facts or even independent confirmation that the listed persons were actually involved. I can't think of a single instance where that's gone horrifically wrong! We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. Vigilante "justice" should not be facilitated, especially not against people who got their names slapped on a patent. If the patent is illegitimate, bring suit under all applicable charges, including considerations for the malicious intent you so obviously believe the inventors held. Let's never build a list like the one you've proposed.

jjoonathan 13y ago
> We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. No it doesn't, and that's the problem. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope and tends to do more harm than good, but let's not pretend the motivation doesn't exist. Because it does. In spades.
Dylan16807 13y ago
The law goes after people that do illegal things. Public shaming goes after people that do immoral things. This is not about vigilantism.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  There are multiple types of law, but all of it addresses the public's sense of acceptable tolerances of moral behavior. If someone immorally acquired a patent, there are or should be legal functions to provide redress. If the legal structure necessary does not yet exist, that's why you have representatives. Call them. "Public shaming" is not a good behavior in civilized society. Think about the patent from the perspective of the authors. Consider their motives. It's very unlikely that the motive is "I'm going to sue everyone who takes a picture on a white background." Consider the importance of a defensive patent portfolio and the likelihood that a case that actually did cite this patent would fail. It's entirely plausible that the patent was acquired for purely defensive purposes ("If we don't claim it, a less-good entity will, and they'll use it irresponsibly"). Even after all this, perhaps the authors simply have a different perspective than many on HN. It's not actually objectively evil to have differing or uncommon beliefs on what comprises a valid patent. Does that disagreement really justify the complete obliteration of the person's privacy? I keep posting about this on HN and people keep ignoring it, but this is just another example of the rapid deterioration of civil society. If people can't even disagree on a matter as blase as intellectual property law without getting doxxed and run out of their homes, we have a very serious problem with major ramifications for the continued existence of free society.
HarryHirsch 13y ago
We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances Unfortunately we don't. There is great asymmetry in favour of the patent holder, a patent is presumed valid until challenged, and that is easily a six-digit sum. Most people and most small companies don't have that kind of money lying around to state their case that Amazon is patenting basic techniques in studio photography. And there is the problem. This outcome appears unjust because it is. The civilized way of justice through the courts is not available, consequently we are seeing calls for vigilantism. Someone will uphold the law, and if it isn't the Executive and Congress the street will step in to fill the void.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  The civilized way is available. If existing patent law makes it prohibitively difficult to remove a bad patent, the civilized solution is to call your local representatives and work with them to author a bill that modifies the system. It is not to release personal information about the people who disagree and say, "Well, the law isn't what we want it to be right now, so we're going to harass, torment, embarrass, and scare you, because you did something legal which I don't think you should've been allowed to do." Again, look up rule of law. If we can't accept that sometimes we have to obey and respect law while simultaneously working to correct it, whether we agree or not, then we have nothing left.

jjoonathan 13y ago

> We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. No it doesn't, and that's the problem. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope and tends to do more harm than good, but let's not pretend the motivation doesn't exist. Because it does. In spades.

Dylan16807 13y ago

The law goes after people that do illegal things. Public shaming goes after people that do immoral things. This is not about vigilantism.

cookiecaper 13y ago
There are multiple types of law, but all of it addresses the public's sense of acceptable tolerances of moral behavior. If someone immorally acquired a patent, there are or should be legal functions to provide redress. If the legal structure necessary does not yet exist, that's why you have representatives. Call them. "Public shaming" is not a good behavior in civilized society. Think about the patent from the perspective of the authors. Consider their motives. It's very unlikely that the motive is "I'm going to sue everyone who takes a picture on a white background." Consider the importance of a defensive patent portfolio and the likelihood that a case that actually did cite this patent would fail. It's entirely plausible that the patent was acquired for purely defensive purposes ("If we don't claim it, a less-good entity will, and they'll use it irresponsibly"). Even after all this, perhaps the authors simply have a different perspective than many on HN. It's not actually objectively evil to have differing or uncommon beliefs on what comprises a valid patent. Does that disagreement really justify the complete obliteration of the person's privacy? I keep posting about this on HN and people keep ignoring it, but this is just another example of the rapid deterioration of civil society. If people can't even disagree on a matter as blase as intellectual property law without getting doxxed and run out of their homes, we have a very serious problem with major ramifications for the continued existence of free society.

HarryHirsch 13y ago

We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances Unfortunately we don't. There is great asymmetry in favour of the patent holder, a patent is presumed valid until challenged, and that is easily a six-digit sum. Most people and most small companies don't have that kind of money lying around to state their case that Amazon is patenting basic techniques in studio photography. And there is the problem. This outcome appears unjust because it is. The civilized way of justice through the courts is not available, consequently we are seeing calls for vigilantism. Someone will uphold the law, and if it isn't the Executive and Congress the street will step in to fill the void.

cookiecaper 13y ago
The civilized way is available. If existing patent law makes it prohibitively difficult to remove a bad patent, the civilized solution is to call your local representatives and work with them to author a bill that modifies the system. It is not to release personal information about the people who disagree and say, "Well, the law isn't what we want it to be right now, so we're going to harass, torment, embarrass, and scare you, because you did something legal which I don't think you should've been allowed to do." Again, look up rule of law. If we can't accept that sometimes we have to obey and respect law while simultaneously working to correct it, whether we agree or not, then we have nothing left.