Facebook sued over 'like' button
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
But worst of all is the feeling of helplessness of it all: it's a big dog fight. Small ones either have to run with tail between legs (pay up, give up, throw work away) or fight to eventually get crushed (by the outcome or by being out of financial breath in the process).
I apologize for the negative rant, but frankly, as I re-read it, it really looks more realistic then pessimistic.
Let's say that the legal entity is registered in Switzerland or China or Russia for that matter.
This company sells some goods [virtual/physical] through a web site [for example using Amazon 1-Click patent] to a person, who happens to be an American citizen, with payment made by credit card.
How this company will become "subject to these rules and ridiculous software patents"? In which court will this case be processed? How the court decision will be enforced?
If you're doing business with American users, defined as "people residing in or doing business within the borders of" the United States, then you're subject to the patent laws.
All a claimant needs to do is prove that this is the case and the lawsuit can proceed. Then you'll need to find representation in a particular court in Texas to defend yourself, or you'll have to settle out of court at your own considerable expense.
If you're sued and you don't defend yourself, you will probably lose by default, so you can have a judgement enforced against you. This might preclude you from travelling in to or even through the United States.
There are other effective things than the above, it's just an example.
One of the reasons I became a lawyer, instead of just a software engineer, is because it was clear to me, even 15 years ago, that patents were going to destroy our industry.
It was also clear that the majority of software engineers would do one of three things:
1. Pretend it did not matter.
2. Dismiss the threat until it became huge.
3. Complain about it on Usenet (now "random blogs, internet forums, and social media sites").
It took a long time to get to the point it is now. It will, realistically, take a long time to get to a better point. Yes, everyone has a quick fix solution, like "ban software patents" or "pray the federal circuit/supreme court saves us from years of bad policy and legal decisions". These are all long shots. They may happen. But it's all short term plays. You need the long term play as well, in the background, in case these don't work out.
People have this weird idea that the content industry/etc simply backed up a truck of money to congress people and got the laws they wanted. Instead, they spend 20+ years meeting with politicians, advocating their position, forming lobbying groups, and slowly winning politicians over. They showed (mostly fake) economic benefit, had studies done, kept harping them over and over. Certainly they donated, but if you think it was simply because they gave some congressman some money, you don't understand how things get done.
If you want to stop software patents, you need to take this long term approach as well. Don't get me wrong, I hope the supreme court reigns in the federal circuit as well. But if you want real change, it often takes time. At least in the current world, there is a 0% chance this change will happen if the only action is to write comments about news stories on internet sites.
> they spend 20+ years meeting with politicians, advocating their position, forming lobbying groups, and slowly winning politicians over.
This is exactly what I'm talking about - what average working person with a family can compete with an army of full time lobbyists whose job it is to meet with congress, take them out for meals, and do whatever else they do to get what they want?
Doing all this is a lobbyist's full time job. They're backed by various industries with seemingly unlimited wealth. Compared to the average person's net worth, their funding may as well be unlimited. What average person with a full time job and family could ever compete with this in his or her limited off time? How practical and useful is it for us to flood congress with letters, emails and faxes "all the time, every time"? I don't think this is a useful strategy at all!
And what's wrong with "complaining about it on an internet forum"? Sometimes it's nice to vent the frustration and hopelessness to people who understand. I certainly do. There's nothing wrong with this. Sometimes complaining is all we CAN do right now.
The only practical solution I have found is to fund those whose full time job it is to be watchdogs and to fight back, like the EFF. That's about the best I can do for now. I haven't been shown another reasonable action that I can take that would be truly useful.
But it's condescending because of statements like this: "This is exactly what I'm talking about - what average working person with a family can compete with an army of full time lobbyists whose job it is to meet with congress, take them out for meals, and do whatever else they do to get what they want?" and "And what's wrong with "complaining about it on an internet forum"? Sometimes it's nice to vent the frustration and hopelessness to people who understand. I certainly do. There's nothing wrong with this. Sometimes complaining is all we CAN do right now."
So let's start with the first one. I first suggested you write letters, and take an occasional meeting. Lunch is fine. Heck even telephone is fine if you really don't have the time. Average working people get lunch, and have telephones. They can also write letters. So i find your complaint disingenuous.
Second, lobbyists are not backed by industries with unlimited wealth. They aren't magical boogeymen. This is just another way you are trying to make it seem like there is nothing you can do, so you shouldn't feel bad about complaining instead of doing something. Most lobbyists are also not full-time on anything. They are firms, they have a lot of engagements. Maybe some very small subset is full time on strategy or PR for a few months of a campaign, for some really big client, but past that, nope. It's like paying a lawyer, not paying a personal assistant. Most tech folks are pretty well off. They could probably afford to buy enough lobbyist time to have your lobbyist take the meetings above if you wanted. This would be less effective than doing it yourself, and less effective than what I suggested.
You then say "How practical and useful is it for us to flood congress with letters, emails and faxes "all the time, every time"? I don't think this is a useful strategy at all!" It is absolutely practical, and absolutely useful. Congressmen live and die by statistics on what their constituents want, contrary to popular belief. They track letters, faxes, and phone calls on issues from constituents. They are briefed on issues and constituent viewpoints probably every morning. If you flooded them all the time, every time, it would make an actual impact. They care less about lobbyists than direct constituents. I'll point out that you didn't actually refute my point, just again went into "throw up my hands and pretend i can't do anything" mode.
As for the second larger point about complaining, there is no hopelessness except the hopelessness you are creating by pretending you can do nothing, and trying to make it seem okay. It's never the case that all you can do is complain. Never.
I already gave you a reasonable action. You apparently believe your action in giving the EFF a few bucks is truly useful, and "that's about the best you can do for now". So let me ask: Has it stemmed the tide of patents? Has it won a court case? Gotten a law on patents passed? Why do you expect this to change if you gave them a few more bucks?
Not to belittle the work of the EFF (some of my good friends work there, and they do what they can), but they should be the support. They are also a fairly general digital rights org. When congressmen all jump up and down and say "oh shit, all my constituents are yelling about patents, what the hell should we be doing?", that's when the EFF is useful to help. Besides that, finding or providing cheap legal representation for the guy who is getting screwed, or lending a voice here or there. Past that, if the EFF had a billion dollars, nothing would change in the current state of the world of patents. Money for the EFF or lobbyists is not the missing piece of the puzzle here to effect real change.
You know, its funny. My job puts me in a position where I can see what the money at least one large tech company spends on lobbyists goes to. I also get asked to help with these plans from time to time. You know what these lobbyists spend a lot of their time doing? Trying to get tech folks to write letters, email, call, or meet with congress people. That thing you claim isn't effective or practical. The last time I asked a high powered, well monied lobbyist what the lowest effort, highest impact thing tech folks could do to win these political fights would be, his answer was simple: "Show up"
FWIW: I am condescending not because I think I am better than you, but because you are better than this. Do the simple and practical things. Do the things you haven't tried before. If you want to complain, I certainly can't stop you, and venting is a wonderful thing to do. But don't act like you can't do anything, and don't act like doing nothing, helps.
Amazingly interesting insight. Thanks, DannyBee, for weighing in on this and other issues. Your comments are really worth reading.
Man, I wish someone in the US government agreed with you on thatOH WAIT http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/more/2012-035
Not that a single report means anything for policy, I just saw this on HN a few days ago and thought it was relevant to that point.
EDIT: Here you go lazy downvoters: http://news.priorsmart.com/ibm-files-the-patent-troll-patent...
http://www.rembrandtip.com/pdf/2013-02-04RembrandtSocialComp... (With Facebook and AddThis as defendants)
Here are the two patents in question
http://www.google.com/patents/US6415316 (1998, Method and apparatus for implementing a web page diary)
http://www.google.com/patents/US6289362 (2001, System and method for generating, transferring and using an annotated universal address)
And here is a patent supposedly in the hands of Facebook right now, that references one of the above patents. This is now used to claim that Facebook knew of the patents, and willfully infringed them.
http://www.google.com/patents/US7907966 (2011, System and method for cross-platform applications on a wireless phone).
i) It feels a lot more relevant to something like Pinterest.
ii) Isn't the product they're describing just a copyright violating website?
iii) Isn't the core of the product, the AUA, just a list of URLs? Isn't this just a regular CMS? Were there really no CMSs before 1998?
i) I'm not familiar with how Pinterest works, so I'm no help there.
ii) they're describing essentially any annotation of content (including a link to content), provided the conditional presentation of that annotation happens on the client side.
iii) Patents are granted to inventions comprising all the elements of their claims. Reducing things to their 'core' is a habit of engineers that hampers understanding of the patent system.
The only things that are relevant as prior art, are those that contain all the elements.
A CMS that contained annotations along with content is not prior art for Claim 1 of the '362 patent, if it did conditional rendering based on that annotation on the server. As Claim 1 includes sending an applet, template and data to the client, to handle the conditional presentation.
If a given implementation doesn't send an applet, it wouldn't count as prior art if it came before, and it wouldn't infringe if it came after.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/before-facebook-t...
Pay a small membership fee to have access to their "technology" as well as immunity from being sued with regard to their patents. It's not unlike the mob, though, having to pay a 'protection fee'.