Kickstarter being sued for patent infringment.
pcworld.com
pcworld.com
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/#!/petition/direct-pat...
When patents are enforced by big legal entities, we all scream foul, "Patents are meant to protect the little guy, not make lawyers rich!"
Now we have a musician (a "little guy") suing a much loved successful startup... and we are still screaming, but instead of "Stop the lawyers!" we are yelling "Stop the hipster artists!" (at least lhnn was).
If this musician was suing Real Player or Rhapsody or some entity we didn't all love, I wonder how different the response (here in the comments) would have been?
if(!entity.isUnderdog())
complain();
else
support();
The complaint isn't about little guy vs big companies, it's about bullshit patents. A big company using a bullshit patent to squeeze out a little guy is just the most egregious example of bullshit.
In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist", but it's more that he's a "douchebag artist" with a bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of us money by distracting people from doing awesome stuff.
> In this case, it's less so that it's a "hipster artist",
but it's more that he's a "douchebag artist" with a
bullshit patent. Bullshit patents cost all of us money by
distracting people from doing awesome stuff.
If I took the identical scenario and replaced "douchebag artist" with Sergey Brin or Steve Jobs and left all other facts the same (the same patent, the same timeline, the same lawsuit) this discussion looks A LOT different.
Now you have people asserting the patent validity and how it overlaps with X and infringes on Y, but with some easily dismissable artist at the helm, most people have the same response you do -- shove him into a socially defined box and throw it all out the window as bullshit antics of some random douchebag wearing a hemp necklace.
All of these discussions are bullshit - they produce nothing except strife and accomplish nothing.
Larry Ellison, for instance – widely considered a douchebag.
I can't speak for others, but I'm fairly certain the issue are bullshit patents.
>All of these discussions are bullshit - they produce nothing except strife and accomplish nothing.
Complaining is human, and it allows us to get a measure of everyone else's opinions. If you removed griping from HN you wouldn't have much else left.
Please, don't use "ALL" because that is not true, I don't cream this, so your statement is a fallacy easily to demonstrate. It is only you who has problems with big entities by default.
Patents are about successful implementation of inventions. Business patents should never be granted in a free market economy because it destroys it and create a "privilege and monopoly buying" society." in witch people in power could buy privileges witch gives them power and the possibility to buy more privileges.
The moment you need to ask permission to the state to operate in your business you are not in a free market anymore, you are in a centralized economy in witch everything is decided by the people in top.
US of America is becoming a totalitarian state, step by step.
No. I'm against patents because ideas shouldn't be owned, especially obvious ideas. Patents have never, ever served the little guy. That's pro-IP propaganda and at best a 17th century idea that never panned out.
P.s.: Most patent trolls are "little guys", and they are usually suing where the money is.
If you're going to accuse people being driven by unconsidered emotions, perhaps you could come up with an example that suits your case?
Utopian dreaming aside, I've studied the patent a little, and it looks like Kickstarter has a problem.
Patents are meant to encourage entrepreneurship... not fund court rooms and judges' salaries.
Then a countdown to the expiration of the last patent will start.
And then we will enter an era of freedom of innovation. You will be free to take any design you like and improve on it without fear of being sued into oblivion if your design sees any kind of success.
Oh, well, if we won't be hurting them forever, that's fine then.
When we're talking about independent outlaw actors, as opposed to the law and justice that you invoke in your response, then no, I don't think it's too high a standard.
Mostly, but not absolutely. Unnecessarily exposing the existence and whereabouts of someone's kids for what amounts to little more than vandalism and tagging, yes.
"Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work"
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MNgFAQAAEBAJ
Some hipster artist ("hipster" being an appropriate word here) sues a successful implementation of an offshoot of an idea he had 8 years ago, and then says,
"As an artist myself, I feel that KickStarter may be hurting artist by focusing on 'donating money' rather than celebrating the artist for what they do. Their model does not build fan relationships but just continually asks for handouts."
What a jerk. It's been said here before, but it's worth hitting again: "Ideas are a dime a dozen."
Why do artists assume that every instance of something that doesn't involve the typical exchange of work for money is somehow harming their industry? The most vocal of these people are those 'No-Spec' who thinks sites like 99designs are invariably killing everything they stand for. It reeks of that same mentality and resistance to new revenue models that's turning so many people off to the music and movie industries.
Passion for the rhyme can be cheapened by feedback, and I think that's exactly what's happening with these 'artists'. They're looking at what other people are doing, seeing that it doesn't line up with how they think the industry should work, and then pull these statements out of their arses that it's killing their livelihood.
The first misconception is that artists are generally opposed to new revenue models. Artists, designers, craftspeople have absolutely embraced new revenue models, and the number of artists, graphic designers, fashion designers, video artists, industrial designers, et al. using sites like kickstarter and etsy, or selling digital work like templates or themes, is staggering. And many of these don't involve the 'typical exchange of work for money,' but are on one level or another creatively or professionally fulfilling.
The second is about the 'no spec' argument. There are huge differences between new revenue models—they're not all equal, and they're not all fair. Design professionals find spec work exploitative because they're exchanging their services to a client without any guarantee of payment. Most people in most industries find this unfair. Programmers are no exception. Nobody likes to do a lot of work for someone else to only earn a chance of getting paid.
Working for spec is fundamentally different from working for free for yourself—to design and manufacture a product, for example.
And as a sidenote, while few designers are comfortable with the proliferation of spec-driven websites, most designers I know don't feel particularly threatened by them anymore. At their best, they provide an outlet for students, unemployed, and self-taught designers to build their portfolios. But the work that comes out of them isn't generally great, and the clients that use them are generally the kind of clients nobody wants: fussy, demanding, unimaginative and cheap. Clients who probably wouldn't be paying for design services otherwise. It still costs money to get good work. That's what it's really about: protecting the value of the work you do professionally.
But the work that comes out of them isn't generally great, and the clients that use them are generally the kind of clients nobody wants: fussy, demanding, unimaginative and cheap. Clients who probably wouldn't be paying for design services otherwise. It still costs money to get good work. That's what it's really about: protecting the value of the work you do professionally.
Why is this the concern of anyone but the person doing the work and the client receiving it? Granted, on the whole, by-and-large it's not anything that's going to destroy the creative design industry or invalidate a beautifully composed ad campaign (for example) but it is something that I've heard before.
"Well the work produced isn't that great, these designs sometimes suck".
At the end of the day, if the end goal is to please the client, and the client is pleased with what they have, does it matter if it came from 99designs or if it were produced by Sterling-Cooper?
I suppose the same can be said for spec-work. If the producer of a product/service/design understands that they are working potentially for free to win a contract, who's business is that but their own and the clients? It seems like there might be a disconnect in that if your goal is to maximize output and bring in a respectable wage-say as a freelancer-that you'll go for clients who are willing to negotiate fair terms, and compensate you a decent wage. Instead, what I see (and this is just anecdotal observation) is people vilifying designers who choose to work on spec.
I might be missing the point entirely, so take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt.
99 designs and similar are at the very low end of the market and the argument is that it becomes harder for skilled designers/artists to find high-paying work as more companies opt for the cheap route. There are more reasons to hate it from a designer's/artist's point of view, but that's the core of it.
That said, kickstarter certainly doesn't fit in that category, if anything it brings more paying work to designers/artists.
I can somewhat understand the 'harder for skilled designers' argument (though I heavily disagree with it), can you relate what some of the others are?
I'm just wanting to understand I suppose what can best be described as the vitriol of why someone conducting their business in a competitive/cost effective (for the client) manner should mean the demonizing of an industry that allows a company to pick what they want, considering they're paying for it to represent their brand.
Another is that encouraging people to work for free is rather questionable. Arguably it's preying on people who might be rather desperate for money when their time would be better invested in other things.
But most of all, is that the term 'designer' now includes people who produce that poor standard of work as well as, for example, the very talented people who work at Apple. It cheapens the term, and I think that's a lot of the reason you see new job titles appearing regularly from within the industry - a "user experience" designer didn't really exist 2 years ago and it basically means "generalist" or "designer".
A lot of clients evaluate design based on aesthetics, which is obviously only half of the solution. It can be very difficult to differentiate yourself from the 'designers' who churn out lots of ill thought through work, especially if you're new in the industry and you don't have lots of client experience to write about.