4 ms·

> This is a great idea. Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it. This is like picking a bad article linke

> This is a great idea. Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it. This is like picking a bad article linked on Hacker News and saying "Hacker News is broken and needs to be abolished". You're not going to convince anyone with this kind of cherry picking. Besides, the title made it sound as if the EFF was filing stupid patents.

shmerl 12y ago
No. Exactly by providing examples which are explained clearly, one can argue that the system is broken if it passes such examples through. Saying that it's broken with theoretical explanation is not enough. Practical examples demonstrate what is broken.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  All you're doing with the cherry picking is showing that the system isn't perfect, not that it's broken.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    Each "cherry" survived for years of (re)examinations. They should have been inspected at least as well as this fruit [1] and tossed if bad. [1] http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japan-509988661 http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japa...
    - axman6 12y ago
      Do you honestly think that it even possible that examiners spend years examining cases? I can tell you with 100% certainty they do no, and the cost to the tax payer of doing so would be astronomical. Most bad patents are rejected, but you never hear any news about that do you? Selection bias is clearly at play here, and only idiots would think that examples of a few poor partents are evidence the system is broken. There are definitely issues with the system, but the system is not completely broken as some who have no knowledge of the issue would have you believe.
      - shmerl 12y ago
        > but the system is not completely broken That's demagogy. Completely or not completely is irrelevant. If it's passing through tons of patents like that and doesn't provide adequate means to prevent patent abuse - it requires a thorough reform. Those who claim that the system is not broken want to keep the status quo, because they benefit from the junk patents and patent abuse.
        zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        > > but the system is not completely broken > That's demagogy. Uh... what? I think the claim that the system is not completely broken is very fair. If you want to prove it wrong, show that 90%+ of the patents are junk. > Completely or not completely is irrelevant. If it's passing through tons of patents It doesn't matter which patents pass, what matters is which absurd patents go to court and win. So, let's see, how many court cases have we seen this past decade where absolutely absurd patents ended up winning in court? Don't get me wrong, I think the system has problems, I just don't think it's broken and needs to be completely abolished. We need to find a way to eradicate patent trolls and there are a lot of potential solutions to this. For example, if company A acquires company B, then company B's patents become void and null unless A can prove these patents are applicable to its business. Blam. All patent trolls vanish. Once you eliminate the problem of patent trolls, you realize that the idea behind software patents is sound and actually promotes innovation, start ups and entrepreneurship.
        SoftwareMaven 12y ago
        You are a small businessman. You get a letter demanding $5000 because you are infringing on this stupid patent. How often would you choose to spend $1M or more to fight the patent? Don't you see how ludicrous your test for correctness is?
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > Once you eliminate the problem of patent trolls, you realize that the idea behind software patents is sound and actually promotes innovation, start ups and entrepreneurship. Eliminating patent trolls would eliminate that problem for large corporations, although it would still cost them million of dollars to apply for patents solely to cancel out others' patents through cross-licensing. Start ups are even more screwed because all of the large incumbents still each have a huge arsenal of broad software patents and can bury any software start up in litigation who tries to compete with them. This also makes having a software patent essentially useless for a start up because any attempt to assert it against an incumbent would only result in counterclaims and ruinous litigation costs. The idea that a small practicing entity can realistically assert a software patent against a large tech corporation is beyond belief. And that's before you even consider the six-figure cost of paying lawyers to get a patent through the patent office, which then generally isn't even issued until the technology at issue is either obsolete and disused or so common and ingrained in the status quo that issuing an effectively retroactive patent on it without prior notice to those who have since adopted it is inherently unreasonable. Software patents are fundamentally useless and should be abolished.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    "Not perfect" means broken, since such cherry picking can easily pile up to hundreds and thousands like EFF said in the post. There is no doubt about the amount of bad patents. Demonstrating what is bad is however very useful.
    - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
      I don't know what system you have in mind to replace software patents, but I'm pretty sure it won't be perfect either, which, by your own definition means that your solution is just as broken. Surely we can agree that "not perfect" is not equivalent to "broken"?
      - ArtDev 12y ago
        A single patent can bring a business to its knees or stifle a whole potential new industry. When it comes to patents, "not perfect" means "very broken".
        zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        So what's your perfect system?
        nitrogen 12y ago
        None at all.
        zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        What's your evidence that it's perfect? For example, a startup with hardly any funding comes up with a very innovative idea to tackle a problem, they start working on it with very little funding. Facebook grabs the idea, implements it in a month, exposes it to a billion users and the startup just dies. What's the incentive for the next innovators to create a startup in such conditions? "What's the point of trying to create something novel since Facebook or Apple will just copy us and crush us". Not exactly a perfect system now, is it?
- Shivetya 12y ago
  I am not sure if it will result in any real change, if anything it may deflect criticism as it gives far too many a cheap out; slacktivism is common amongst sites like this one where angst and such is acted out but results in very little actual change. The resulting discussion becomes the extent of effort most will put forward, nodding of heads and screams of me too. There are many similar sites raising issues that are important to society but the result seems to be the same, people come to blow off steam and get sated. It might be fun if the EFF could post a threshold for investigating patents, perhaps taking suggestions and pricing it. Let people buy the patent shaming. I know they take blanket donations but targeted ones might get more people interested. Sally Struthers style, for only a one time donation of, we can expose a patent.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > I am not sure if it will result in any real change Policy makers might be somewhat burdened by pure abstract arguments about how broken the system is, or not give them enough thought at all. Providing such clear examples helps them to make educated decisions and convince others as well. So I definitely see a value in such articles. Here is a good post on the similar subject: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140729/05504028040/if-you-want-to-know-how-supporting-techdirt-can-help-shift-debate-washington-dc-read-this.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140729/05504028040/if-yo...
Natsu 12y ago
For a story to appear on HN's front page, you need perhaps a few dozen upvotes. For a patent to be approved, years are spent examining it. If a bad story hits HN, it's gone within the day. If a bad patent is issued, it can be used to extort millions of dollars out of people who are doing useful work. The situations aren't glibly comparable. Every bad patent can cost millions of dollars. This isn't a system where we as a society should permit a high false positive rate. In this situation, a high enough false positive rate, as evidenced by bad patents like these, can make it such that the cost of the system outweighs its value, such that a rational society would abolish it if there were no workable means of correction. That aside, I note that the patent bar tries to spin the patent lawsuit revenue as being the value of patents, rather than the cost, so I suppose entrenched interests will continue with that line.
- axman6 12y ago
  > years are spent examining it It's more like a day or two are spent actually examining any case in general. It takes so long because a) it has to (there is an 18 month period between submission and publication) and b) there are a lot of patents and the queue is long. Also you've asserted there is a high false positive rate, but I would put money on the fact that the rate is extremely low. Like people having a fear of flying because they see news reports about all the accidents, the realite is the chances of a patent getting through or you dying on in a plane crash are miniscule, but successful flights and genuine inventions are rarely worth writing about.
  - sinwave 12y ago
    I guess it depends on what one's of "high" is with respect to false positives. I think he's arguing that the costs associated with these false positives are such that even an "extremely low" absolute number (like one in a thousand) is unacceptable. Consider, for example, if airplanes carried tens of thousands, rather than hundreds, of passengers. Then our acceptable false positive rate may change by an order of magnitude.
    - bostik 12y ago
chrismonsanto 12y ago
> Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it. To prove that software patents are bad, it is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient to point out bad examples. Then again I never said the only way of condemning the patent system was through examples?
laumars 12y ago
Abolished != reform. And I don't think your comparison is in any way fair, but to address your point: if HN's quality vs quantity ratio dipped significantly then there would be calls to reform the submission and peer moderation system as well since HN would start to lose visitors over it. In fact constant reform is exactly how most of the top sites have managed to stay relevant in the fickle online world.

shmerl 12y ago

No. Exactly by providing examples which are explained clearly, one can argue that the system is broken if it passes such examples through. Saying that it's broken with theoretical explanation is not enough. Practical examples demonstrate what is broken.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
All you're doing with the cherry picking is showing that the system isn't perfect, not that it's broken.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Each "cherry" survived for years of (re)examinations. They should have been inspected at least as well as this fruit [1] and tossed if bad. [1] http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japan-509988661 http://kotaku.com/two-melons-just-sold-for-us-15-730-in-japa...
  - axman6 12y ago
    Do you honestly think that it even possible that examiners spend years examining cases? I can tell you with 100% certainty they do no, and the cost to the tax payer of doing so would be astronomical. Most bad patents are rejected, but you never hear any news about that do you? Selection bias is clearly at play here, and only idiots would think that examples of a few poor partents are evidence the system is broken. There are definitely issues with the system, but the system is not completely broken as some who have no knowledge of the issue would have you believe.
    - shmerl 12y ago
      > but the system is not completely broken That's demagogy. Completely or not completely is irrelevant. If it's passing through tons of patents like that and doesn't provide adequate means to prevent patent abuse - it requires a thorough reform. Those who claim that the system is not broken want to keep the status quo, because they benefit from the junk patents and patent abuse.
      - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        > > but the system is not completely broken > That's demagogy. Uh... what? I think the claim that the system is not completely broken is very fair. If you want to prove it wrong, show that 90%+ of the patents are junk. > Completely or not completely is irrelevant. If it's passing through tons of patents It doesn't matter which patents pass, what matters is which absurd patents go to court and win. So, let's see, how many court cases have we seen this past decade where absolutely absurd patents ended up winning in court? Don't get me wrong, I think the system has problems, I just don't think it's broken and needs to be completely abolished. We need to find a way to eradicate patent trolls and there are a lot of potential solutions to this. For example, if company A acquires company B, then company B's patents become void and null unless A can prove these patents are applicable to its business. Blam. All patent trolls vanish. Once you eliminate the problem of patent trolls, you realize that the idea behind software patents is sound and actually promotes innovation, start ups and entrepreneurship.
        SoftwareMaven 12y ago
        You are a small businessman. You get a letter demanding $5000 because you are infringing on this stupid patent. How often would you choose to spend $1M or more to fight the patent? Don't you see how ludicrous your test for correctness is?
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > Once you eliminate the problem of patent trolls, you realize that the idea behind software patents is sound and actually promotes innovation, start ups and entrepreneurship. Eliminating patent trolls would eliminate that problem for large corporations, although it would still cost them million of dollars to apply for patents solely to cancel out others' patents through cross-licensing. Start ups are even more screwed because all of the large incumbents still each have a huge arsenal of broad software patents and can bury any software start up in litigation who tries to compete with them. This also makes having a software patent essentially useless for a start up because any attempt to assert it against an incumbent would only result in counterclaims and ruinous litigation costs. The idea that a small practicing entity can realistically assert a software patent against a large tech corporation is beyond belief. And that's before you even consider the six-figure cost of paying lawyers to get a patent through the patent office, which then generally isn't even issued until the technology at issue is either obsolete and disused or so common and ingrained in the status quo that issuing an effectively retroactive patent on it without prior notice to those who have since adopted it is inherently unreasonable. Software patents are fundamentally useless and should be abolished.
- shmerl 12y ago
  "Not perfect" means broken, since such cherry picking can easily pile up to hundreds and thousands like EFF said in the post. There is no doubt about the amount of bad patents. Demonstrating what is bad is however very useful.
  - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    I don't know what system you have in mind to replace software patents, but I'm pretty sure it won't be perfect either, which, by your own definition means that your solution is just as broken. Surely we can agree that "not perfect" is not equivalent to "broken"?
    - ArtDev 12y ago
      A single patent can bring a business to its knees or stifle a whole potential new industry. When it comes to patents, "not perfect" means "very broken".
      - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        So what's your perfect system?
        nitrogen 12y ago
        None at all.
        zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        What's your evidence that it's perfect? For example, a startup with hardly any funding comes up with a very innovative idea to tackle a problem, they start working on it with very little funding. Facebook grabs the idea, implements it in a month, exposes it to a billion users and the startup just dies. What's the incentive for the next innovators to create a startup in such conditions? "What's the point of trying to create something novel since Facebook or Apple will just copy us and crush us". Not exactly a perfect system now, is it?
Shivetya 12y ago
I am not sure if it will result in any real change, if anything it may deflect criticism as it gives far too many a cheap out; slacktivism is common amongst sites like this one where angst and such is acted out but results in very little actual change. The resulting discussion becomes the extent of effort most will put forward, nodding of heads and screams of me too. There are many similar sites raising issues that are important to society but the result seems to be the same, people come to blow off steam and get sated. It might be fun if the EFF could post a threshold for investigating patents, perhaps taking suggestions and pricing it. Let people buy the patent shaming. I know they take blanket donations but targeted ones might get more people interested. Sally Struthers style, for only a one time donation of, we can expose a patent.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > I am not sure if it will result in any real change Policy makers might be somewhat burdened by pure abstract arguments about how broken the system is, or not give them enough thought at all. Providing such clear examples helps them to make educated decisions and convince others as well. So I definitely see a value in such articles. Here is a good post on the similar subject: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140729/05504028040/if-you-want-to-know-how-supporting-techdirt-can-help-shift-debate-washington-dc-read-this.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140729/05504028040/if-yo...

Natsu 12y ago

For a story to appear on HN's front page, you need perhaps a few dozen upvotes. For a patent to be approved, years are spent examining it. If a bad story hits HN, it's gone within the day. If a bad patent is issued, it can be used to extort millions of dollars out of people who are doing useful work. The situations aren't glibly comparable. Every bad patent can cost millions of dollars. This isn't a system where we as a society should permit a high false positive rate. In this situation, a high enough false positive rate, as evidenced by bad patents like these, can make it such that the cost of the system outweighs its value, such that a rational society would abolish it if there were no workable means of correction. That aside, I note that the patent bar tries to spin the patent lawsuit revenue as being the value of patents, rather than the cost, so I suppose entrenched interests will continue with that line.

axman6 12y ago
> years are spent examining it It's more like a day or two are spent actually examining any case in general. It takes so long because a) it has to (there is an 18 month period between submission and publication) and b) there are a lot of patents and the queue is long. Also you've asserted there is a high false positive rate, but I would put money on the fact that the rate is extremely low. Like people having a fear of flying because they see news reports about all the accidents, the realite is the chances of a patent getting through or you dying on in a plane crash are miniscule, but successful flights and genuine inventions are rarely worth writing about.
- sinwave 12y ago
  I guess it depends on what one's of "high" is with respect to false positives. I think he's arguing that the costs associated with these false positives are such that even an "extremely low" absolute number (like one in a thousand) is unacceptable. Consider, for example, if airplanes carried tens of thousands, rather than hundreds, of passengers. Then our acceptable false positive rate may change by an order of magnitude.
  - bostik 12y ago

chrismonsanto 12y ago

> Not really: you don't condemn an entire system by pointing out individual bad examples of it. To prove that software patents are bad, it is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient to point out bad examples. Then again I never said the only way of condemning the patent system was through examples?

laumars 12y ago

Abolished != reform. And I don't think your comparison is in any way fair, but to address your point: if HN's quality vs quantity ratio dipped significantly then there would be calls to reform the submission and peer moderation system as well since HN would start to lose visitors over it. In fact constant reform is exactly how most of the top sites have managed to stay relevant in the fickle online world.