Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_decay | Hacker News Reader

Why should they have shame? This is exactly how the system works. They are abusing the system in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft have been, the latter just seem to have a soft spot in some people's hearts.

We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.

View on HN

> We need a patent nuclear war. This needs to end. BRING IT ON LODSYS. May every patent holder in every nook and cranny start cashing in.

I couldn't agree more. I fundamentally disagree with what they do, how the patent system works, etc, but I think these malicious actors will serve to take down the system. The more patent suits of these sort go up, the better I believe the odds are that we'll end up with some sort of sanity.

Or we'll end up with more bullshit legislation which does nothing but make it harder to do legitimate business. We'll see.

We'll wind up with BS legislation as vested interests in the current system try to maintain their power even as protections are added.

As an example of the likely result, see the America Invents Act. Which changes us from first to invent to first to file. And then in section 18 carves out a big patent exception for the financial industry (because they had enough lobbyists).

BTW if you thought that our current system was bad, wait until it is irrelevant whether someone else previously shipped software product with your "invention" in it.

I had wondered if this was the angle Google's legal team were taking, given that they only made a half hearted attempt in the Nortel patent auction.

OK I'll bite and jump to defend Microsoft. Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? (I _hate_ to be defending Microsoft. But I can't recall Microsoft having done this.)

Edit:

I did find this: http://androinica.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-no...

I don't mind MS going after large targets with obvious infringements, but a lot of the alleged infringements are ridiculous. It seems to me that the complexity of modern hardware and software has made patents very difficult to administer, but then the question remains: would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?

Microsoft like to use FUD, not action. Probably because most small developers are poor. They did it against Linux OS and indirectly, the Linux vendors: http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-repeats-threats-against-Linux/2...

Personal opinion: They did it to squeeze Linux out of the desktop market.

I think OEM are by far their most effective action again GNU/Linux on the desktop. FUD may help, but I think it helps much more to offer a (possibly conditional) discount the hardware vendors simply cannot afford to refuse (especially if they know their competitors will have the same discount).

>Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit?

Why does it have to be a "fairly small developer"? Microsoft has a legacy of a lot of broad patents owing to the fact that they've been rolling in billions for decades (and hence can stomach having a lot of people filing trivial patents). With that they try to either run competitors out of business, FUD users into avoiding alternatives, or outright demand some extortion fees (see every Android maker and Microsoft's current patent shakedown).

"Obvious infrginements" is loaded and has little meaning given the incredibly broad patents allowed by the patent system.

>would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?

We would be far better off without software patents. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I neither encourages innovation (it more likely discourages innovation), and it only helps to entrench the most successful.

When the funded SCO, they came after all of us.

That's certainly a dastardly dead, but SCO was using copyright and trademark law, not patents. Without copyright "open source" has no validity.

In my opinion copyright has worse problems than patents right now (because patents at least expire).

As other responses have mentioned, Microsoft tends to use FUD and go after bigger players (like Android), which can be seen as a symbolic attack against fairly small developers. They also use proxies, like SCO and Intellectual Ventures, to do their dirty work, so they can claim they use their patents defensively when questioned by anyone unfamiliar with the proxies' behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com