Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by yieldcrv | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

yieldcrv

So we like this one because the patent holder made their own product as well?

or do we still just not like software patents

or do we like that there is a (read: any) remedy for this person having their idea and product copied

or do we just not like Meta and their tactics

View on HN

Here, let me help:

1. "Facebook approached Voxer about a potential collaboration that led to Voxer sharing its patents and proprietary information with the company"

2. Facebook then said 'naaaaah'

3. Facebook then copied some of the technologies he'd shown them to both Facebook and Instagram

The conclusion most people would draw is that Facebook is a piece of shit.

Does that clarify things? Or would you like to keep suggesting that people here have double standards regarding software patents?

You missed the "Facebook revoked Voxer’s access to key components of the Facebook platform". That isn't a good look when you exclude the competition even if you own the platform. Ask Microsoft how well that works in court.

Its not an antitrust lawsuit its a patent infringement lawsuit

in fact its the exact opposite of an antitrust lawsuit since patents themselves are a 20 year state-sanctioned monopoly

Actions taken against a party factor into any lawsuit.

The question is whether you would hold the same opinion if the patent holder never made their own app at all

Because since this is a patent lawsuit the existence of a video technology patent is all that matters

Not the ways facebook did grimy actions

This isnt fundamentally different than other software patent litigation threads, so yes I am suggesting a double standard and am here to confirm it

> that led to Voxer sharing its patents

Wait what does this mean? Isn't the whole point of patents that it's supposed to be public? If so, how could you "share" them any more than you already did when publishing the patent?

> copied some of the technologies

That's the part people are disagreeing with. The patents are overly broad and the Judge is well-known for siding with patent trolls.

So is Voxer patent trolling here? Does it matter because it is meta? Does their earlier meeting about the voxer app actually factor in to it?

If we are living in a world with patents (we are), it is good to see their benefits extended to the small guys as well as megacorps.

Personally, I think there are good patents and bad patents. The existing criteria are pretty good, but poorly applied. In particular, the difficulty is the obviousness test.

Patentable inventions should not be obvious to an expert in the field at the time of filing.

It is very difficult to assess what is novel/non-obvious after the fact. E.g. the wheel now seems an obvious solution to help move weight. Before it was invented, not so much.

One quibble, almost? everything is obvious to a bona fide expert in the field at the time of filing. The legal requirement is that something be non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field.

I think we are both a little off. The test is for someone with with ordinary skill for someone practicing in the field, eg an ordinary mech engineer for a mechanical patent.

Everything is not obvious to an expert. There are actually hard problems that take time and effort to solve, even for experts.

I also often feel like HN takes inconsistent positions on things, but it's important to remember that the community here is composed of different people with different positions. Every position you list above is held by, and voice by, someone — but not everyone. So, it's not actually inconsistent unless you forget that individuals all have their own minds.

its not the stated opinions I’m that interested in, its the surfaced opinions by way of consensus

glorifying a software patent could easily be greyed out or collapsed by the community

while top comments also reflect at least several people’s willingness to substantiate the quality of

Reply on news.ycombinator.com